Bioactive acid agrichemical compositions and use thereof

ABSTRACT

Bioactive agrichemical concentrates and compositions having improved bioactivity comprising metal-acid solutions.

The present patent application claims the benefit of prior filed U.S.Provisional Patent Application No. 60/930,913, filed May 18, 2007 andentitled “Bioactive Compositions and Use Thereof” which is herebyincorporated herein in its entirety by reference.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to novel bioactive concentrates as liquidsolutions or solid compositions comprising an acid and one or moresources of antimicrobial metal ions, alone or, preferably, in furthercombination with one or more surfactants capable of interacting withcell wall membranes of microorganisms, especially pathogenic microbes.These bioactive concentrates may be diluted with liquid or soliddiluents for use in a wide variety of end-use applications, including,in particular, as bioactive agrichemicals for the control, inhibitionand/or killing of microorganisms, especially fungi, bacteria and/orplant, stramenophile and fungi-like protists.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Bioactive materials for killing or inhibiting the growth and/orproliferation/spreading of bacteria, fungi, and other microorganismshave long been sought and employed in society. Their use dates backcenturies, if not thousands of years. Early applications had ranged frompharmaceutical or health related applications to disinfectant andpurification applications and more. More recent applications include awhole host of uses, with the largest use, by volume, seen in theagricultural industry. Perhaps one of the earliest bioactive materialswas metallic silver and, subsequently, silver salts.

While early bioactive agents were most often metals and simple metalsalts, modern science and chemical synthesis have enabled thedevelopment and production of synthetic agents, most often organic andorganometallic agents, for antibacterial, antifungal and other likeapplications. Indeed, for many applications, especially pharmaceuticalapplications, the organic agents have, for the most part, eclipsed theuse of inorganic bioactive agents. While inorganic and organometallicmaterials still command a significant market share of the agrichemicalbusiness, their use is limited due to their health and safety concerns,especially from an environment perspective. Indeed, organic bioactiveagents command a huge portion of the agrochemical business.

Despite the great success and huge market share/volume commanded byorganic pharmaceutical, antibacterial and agrochemical agents, they havenot come without cost and consequences. In all areas of applications, amarked and growing trend has emerged: namely the manifestation andspreading of a resistance to such organic agents in most all, if notall, microorganisms. While this resistance is neither universal norcomplete, it is growing and involves more and more organic agents. Astheir resistance grows, so too does their apparent virulence. In thisrespect, we are all well aware of the growing resistance of bacteria,especially pathogenic bacteria, to traditional pharmaceutical antibioticagents and the subsequent appearance of what are commonly referred to assuperbugs: pathogenic bacteria that show strong resistance totraditional organic antibacterial and pharmaceutical agents.

And, whether a direct or indirect consequence of the appearance ofsuperbugs and/or the growing awareness of the ease by which bacteria canspread combined with an increasing concern for potentially pandemicdiseases such as SARS and Bird Flu, we have become a population that ismore and more pre-occupied with hygiene and general cleanliness.Consequently, there has been a huge proliferation and exponential growthin the widespread and indiscriminate use and application of cleansersand disinfectants that contain organic antimicrobial agents, all in aneffort to ward off exposure to bacteria and, especially, superbugs.However, this indiscriminate use of organic agents has come with, or atleast presents the possibility for, an overall increase in antimicrobialresistant organisms. By eradicating the weaker organisms, the strongerand, most often more damaging, organisms are left.

A similar consequence has manifested itself in the agricultural industryas well, especially in that portion relating to crop/food production.The widespread and repetitive use of organic biocides, fungicides,antibacterial agents and the like, has led to the manifestation of lessand less efficacy of the same against the targeted diseases: anindicator of a growing resistance. Perhaps more alarming is the speedwith which such resistance has begun to appear. For example, despite thegreat fanfare and promise behind the introduction of strobilurinfungicides in the mid-1990s, resistance had been found after just acouple years use in certain applications. Such a growing trend bodes illfor an industry where fewer and fewer acres are called upon to producemore and more crops to feed the ever growing populations while thoseorganisms and microorganisms responsible for attacking such crops becomestronger and stronger and more and more resistant to traditional controlmeans.

While resistance is certainly of great concern, perhaps and even greaterconcern is the human and environmental toll associated with thewidespread use of organic antimicrobial agents. For more than half acentury now, more and more scientific literature has appearedcorrelating long-term exposure (direct and indirect) and use of suchorganic agrichemicals to various diseases and teratogenic, mutanogenic,and other adverse health consequences in animals and, more importantly,the human population. Perhaps the watershed of this awareness isrepresented by the outcry relating to the use of DDT and like pesticideagents in the 1960s. In humans, such a correlation of birth defects,cancer, and other diseases with organic agrichemicals is especiallydisconcerting for those whose water supplies have or may becomecontaminated with such organic agents due to their and/or theirby-product's solubility and long half-lives. Of course drinking water isonly one exposure source: another exposure source concern is inhalationfrom dust blown up from the fields, from wayward aerosols and/orparticulates during aerial spraying and dusting, respectively, and fromexposure to the clothing of workers who, themselves, were exposed in thefields or during application.

In an effort to move away form organic agents, more recent attention hasonce again focused on the inorganic agents, including organometallicagents, since these tend to show or have no, or certainly less, tendencyto result in resistant bacteria, fungi and the like. However, such atrend merely reawakens the debates and concerns relative to thelarge-scale dumping of heavy metals in the environment. Although someefforts have recently focused on improving the old, traditionalinorganic agents, much more effort, particularly in the non-agriculturalarena, has seemingly focused on more complex species and systems, inessence, synthesized inorganic biocides such as the antimicrobialion-exchange type antimicrobial agents based on zeolites, hydroxyapatite, and zirconium phosphates. Other recent biocides include thosebased on electrolytically generated silver citrates; thiol-free,specialty complexes of antimicrobial metals; sulfuric acid/sulfatecomplexes prepared under high pressure and temperature; and the like.While effective, these have limited applications and entail added costsowing to the complex and/or lengthy synthetic processes by which theyare prepared. The latter is of especial concern in the agriculturalindustry where the relative cost to performance trade-off oftentimesprecludes the use of functionally very viable options. Here, a few centsper acre difference, even a fraction of a cent difference per acre, canmean the world of difference in the acceptability and utility of a givenagent.

Despite their inherent environmental and health concerns, the use of“natural” inorganic agents, including manufactured/processed inorganicagents, has been pushed more and more by various environmental andconservation groups, as well as health advocates, as a favorablereplacement to organic agents. While such pressure alone is not likelyto change the industry, the growing resistance to organic agentscombined with the higher and higher costs of synthetic organic agents,is certainly having an impact: not only in the agricultural industry butacross the board in all applications for such bioactive agents. However,as noted above, the reintroduction of and/or increased use of inorganicagents merely brings to the forefront the very issues that caused themto be pushed back to begin with, namely environmental toxicity andcontamination and bioaccumulation. Concern is not just for the effectsduring application, but more so for the long term effects associatedwith the continual build-up of these inorganic agents or theirderivatives, especially the metals, in the environment and in livingorganisms. Such build-up not only pertains to the soils that are treatedbut also underground water supplies that may be replenished from thetreated fields. Concern also exists, sometimes more so, for theconsequences of rain-water run-off carrying the metals into localstreams and, again, downstream water supplies. Ultimately, this build-upalso occurs in the food chain, with higher and higher concentrationsbeing found in those species in the higher order of the food chain.Ultimately, this affects the human supply chain as seen, for examplewith mercury and other metals in tuna and swordfish. While many metals,at least at low exposure levels, have little or no affect on humans,their impact is far greater on marine and other aquatic life, especiallyfish, which tend to be extremely sensitive to heavy metals, like silver,resulting in increase stress and, in extreme exposure situations,widespread kills.

Consequently, as part of this resurgence of inorganic bioactive agents,there has been a significant increase in research and developmentdollars and time spent to address concerns relative to the use of suchinorganic agents. A prime focus has been with respect to making moreconcentrated materials that, it is hoped, will enable the use of lessoverall materials. In the agrichemical arena, one of the inorganicagents receiving the greatest attention, owing to its high efficacy, iscopper. Indeed, it is thought that copper could see a manifold increasein use as organic agents are either precluded from use or farmers optout for more natural agents. According to NCFAP data, in 1997 more than13.7 million pounds of copper was used in fungicide applications ascompared to 40 million pounds of synthetic fungicides at a treatmentrate of about one-half that of copper. If all synthetic fungicides wereto have been supplanted by copper, it would have resulted in an increaseof more than 80 million pounds of copper released into the environment.Now, ten years later, though data is not available, one can only assumethe amounts are much higher. Furthermore, this is but one use of copper:copper and copper based bioactive compositions are also used in otherareas such as algaecides, etc. Regardless, it is clear that anysignificant shift from synthetic to copper fungicides, algaecides, etc.means a huge impact and release of copper into the environment.

As noted above, recent R&D efforts with inorganic fungicides havefocused on the development of improved inorganic agents that producebetter effects with less application. Indeed, in August 2006, DuPont,one of the leading manufacturers of agrichemicals, especially copperbased fungicides, announced certain breakthroughs, as they describedthem, in copper fungicides, specifically its Kocide 3000 copperhydroxide based fungicide, touting their ability to provide moreantifungal action with less copper. Still, its typical application rateis on the order of 1650 grams of copper per acre per application, withsomewhat lower rates, 330 grams per acre, allowed for certainapplications. While certainly an improvement over conventional ortraditional copper based fungicides which are applied at nearly 4.5pounds per acre, it still means the intentional release of huge amountsof copper into the environment, even more if the environmentalists aresuccessful in removing or banning the use of more and more organicagents.

Thus, there is still a tremendous need for cost effective, inorganicagrichemical agents that provide good antimicrobial, antifungal,antibacterial, etc., activity without concern for resistance build-up.

In following, there is a need for inorganic antimicrobial, antifungal,antibacterial, etc., agents that may be used universally, or nearly so,without concern, or certainly with reduced concern for environmentalcontamination and toxicity, especially less so than exists with currentinorganic agents.

Similarly, there is a need for inorganic agents that are stable and easyto use, and provide good short term and, preferably, longer termefficacy as compared to many of the current short lived organic agents.

Additionally, there is a need for such inorganic agents that can safelybe use in agricultural and horticultural applications, including soiland seed treatment, crop/food producing plants and trees, ornamental andflowing plants and tress, fee and ornamental grasses, and the like withminimal exposure concerns.

Furthermore, there is a need for inorganic bioactive agents that can beuse in combination with conventional inorganic and, preferably, organicagrichemical actives and compositions, especially, antimicrobial,antifungal, antibacterial, anti-protist, etc. agents with synergisticresults; thus, enabling less use, overall, of such actives.

Finally, there is a need for bioactive agents that provide efficaciousantimicrobial, antifungal, antiprotist, and/or antibacterial performancewith minimal release of inorganic metals to the environment.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

According to one aspect of the present invention there are providedsolid form bioactive concentrates comprising an acid, especially a weakor moderate acid, at least one source of at least one antimicrobialmetal ion, and, optionally, though preferably, at least one surfactant,especially at least one anionic, non-ionic and/or amphoteric surfactant,that impacts or interacts with cell wall membranes of microorganisms,especially pathogenic microbes, or the function thereof, said acid beingpresent in at least 40 weight percent, preferably from 40 to 80 percent,based on the total weight of the bioactive acid composition, and at alevel that represents at least a 2 times molar excess relative to theantimicrobial metal ions of the source, said bioactive acid compositionhaving a pH of less than 6, preferably from about 1.5 to 5, when dilutedin a solvent, especially water, to a point where the amount ofantimicrobial metal ion is 500 ppm or less in the case of a single ionor 1000 ppm or less in the case or multiple antimicrobial metal ions.These solid concentrates may be let down by dry blending with soliddiluents or fillers or they may be diluted and transformed into liquidform using liquid diluents or fillers for use in various end-useapplications.

According to a second aspect of the present invention there are providedliquid form bioactive concentrates comprising a concentrated aqueous oraqueous-based acid solution, especially of a weak or moderate acid, atleast one antimicrobial metal ion or antimicrobial metal ion source,fully or partially dissolved in said acid solution, and, optionally,though preferably, at least one surfactant, especially at least oneanionic, non-ionic and/or amphoteric surfactant, that impacts orinteracts with cell wall membranes of microorganisms, especiallypathogenic microbes, or the function thereof, wherein the concentrationof the acid, based on the total weight to the bioactive acid solution isat least about 40 weight percent, preferably from 40 to 80 percent, acidand the acid is present a level that is at least a 2 times molar excessrelative to the antimicrobial metal ion(s), and wherein, the pH of thebioactive acid solution is less than 6, preferably 1.5 to 5, when theconcentrated bioactive acid solution is diluted in a solvent, especiallywater, to a point where the amount of antimicrobial metal ion is 500 ppmor less in the case of a single ion or 1000 ppm or less in the case ormultiple antimicrobial metal ions. These liquid concentrates may be letdown by mixing with an appropriate solvent, most especially water or anaqueous-based solvent, for application. Alternatively, especially foragricultural, including horticultural, applications, the concentrate maybe applied as is or in a diluted state to a solid, absorbent materialfor ultimate end-use application.

According to a third embodiment of the present invention, there areprovided flowable bioactive agrichemical compositions in particle form,e.g., dusts, granules, powders, or combinations thereof, comprising asolid carrier particle which has been treated with a bioactive acidsolution, especially an aqueous or aqueous-based solution, having a pHof less than 6, preferably 1.5 to 5, and comprising an acid, especiallya weak or moderate acid, at least one antimicrobial metal ion source,and, optionally, though preferably, at least one surfactant, especiallyat least one anionic, non-ionic and/or amphoteric surfactant, thatimpacts or interacts with cell wall membranes of microorganisms,especially pathogenic microbes, or the function thereof, said acidpresent in a molar excess, relative to the antimicrobial metal ions,where the amount of antimicrobial metal ion is 500 ppm or less in thecase of a single ion or 1000 ppm or less in the case or multipleantimicrobial metal ions.

According to a fourth embodiment of the present invention, there areprovided flowable bioactive agrichemical compositions in particle form,e.g., dusts, granules, powders, or combinations thereof, comprising abioactive acid composition in particle form, preferably a powder, saidbioactive agrichemical composition having been made by i) forming anaqueous solution of an acid, especially a weak or moderate acid, atleast one antimicrobial metal ion source, and, optionally, thoughpreferably, at least one surfactant, especially at least one anionic,non-ionic and/or amphoteric surfactant, that impacts or interacts withcell wall membranes of microorganisms, especially pathogenic microbes,or the function thereof, said acid present in a molar excess, relativeto the antimicrobial metal ions, where the amount of antimicrobial metalion is 500 ppm or less in the case of a single ion or 1000 ppm or lessin the case or multiple antimicrobial metal ions, ii) allowing the waterto evaporate to form the solid bioactive acid and iii) if necessary,grinding or crushing the formed solid bioactive acid to form a powder.

According to a fifth embodiment of the present invention there areprovided liquid bioactive agrichemical compositions comprising a) asuitable solvent or solvent system, b) an acid, especially a weak ormoderate acid, c) at least one antimicrobial metal ion source, and d)optionally, though preferably, at least one surfactant, especially atleast one anionic, non-ionic and/or amphoteric surfactant, that impactsor interacts with cell wall membranes of microorganisms, especiallypathogenic microbes, or the function thereof, wherein the solution ofthe acid and solvent has a pH of less than 6, preferably 1.5 to 5, priorto, and preferably after as well, the addition of the conventionalbioactive agrichemical active, said acid (b) is present in a molarexcess relative to the antimicrobial metal ions of the source (c) andwherein the amount of antimicrobial metal ions attributed to the source(c) is 500 ppm or less in the case of a single ion or 1000 ppm or lessin the case or multiple antimicrobial metal ions. Most preferably, thesolvent is water or a water-based solvent system, most preferably water,and the acid and the antimicrobial metal ion source are all wholly orsubstantially soluble or miscible in the solvent. Where desired, it isalso possible to add the solution to a second, non-aqueous solvent,including a lipophilic solvent, to form a suspension or emulsion.

According to a sixth embodiment of the present invention there isprovided a method of making a solid form bioactive agrichemicalconcentrate comprising dry mixing a) an acid, especially a weak ormoderate acid, b) at least one source of at least one antimicrobialmetal ion, and c) optionally, though preferably, at least onesurfactant, especially at least one anionic, non-ionic and/or amphotericsurfactant, that impacts or interacts with cell wall membranes ofmicroorganisms, especially pathogenic microbes, or the function thereof,said acid being present in at least 40 weight percent, based on thetotal weight of the acid and antimicrobial metal ions source, and at alevel that represents at least a 2 times molar excess relative to theantimicrobial metal ions of the source, the acid being present in anamount whereby a solution made by adding the acid and the antimicrobialmetal ions source to water will have a pH of less than 6, preferablyfrom about 1.5 to 5, when diluted to a point where the amount ofantimicrobial metal ion is 500 ppm or less in the case of a single ionor 1000 ppm or less in the case or multiple antimicrobial metal ions.

According to a seventh embodiment of the present invention there isprovided a method of making a solid form bioactive concentratecomprising i) dissolving a) an acid, especially a weak or moderate acid,b) at least one source of at least one antimicrobial metal ion, and c)optionally, though preferably, at least one surfactant, especially atleast one anionic, non-ionic and/or amphoteric surfactant, that impactsor interacts with cell wall membranes of microorganisms, especiallypathogenic microbes, or the function thereof, in a volatile solvent,especially water or a water-based solvent, ii) allowing the solvent toevaporate to leave a solid cake, granules, or powder, and iii) ifnecessary or desired, grinding the cake to form granules or a powder,wherein the acid is present in at least 40 weight percent, based on thetotal weight of the acid and antimicrobial metal ions source, and at alevel that represents at least a 2 times molar excess relative to theantimicrobial metal ions of the source, the acid being present in anamount whereby a solution made by adding the acid and the antimicrobialmetal ions source to water will have a pH of less than 6, preferablyfrom about 1.5 to 5, when diluted to a point where the amount ofantimicrobial metal ion is 500 ppm or less in the case of a single ionor 1000 ppm or less in the case or multiple antimicrobial metal ions.

According to an eighth embodiment of the present invention there isprovided a method of making a liquid bioactive agrichemical concentratesaid method comprising forming a concentrated aqueous or aqueous-basedacid solution of an acid, preferably a weak or medium acid, wherein theconcentration of the acid is at least 40% by weight, dissolving in theconcentrated acid solution at least one antimicrobial metal ion sourceand, optionally, though preferably, at least one water-solublesurfactant, preferably an anionic, non-ionic and/or amphotericsurfactant.

According to a ninth embodiment of the present invention there isprovided a method of preventing or inhibiting the growth of plantpathogens, especially fungi, bacteria and/or plant, stramenophile andfungi-like protists in agricultural, including horticultural,applications, said method comprising applying to the seeds of thepertinent crop or plant; to the soil in which the seed, crop or plant isor is to be planted; to the aqueous environment in which the plants aregrowing; or to the matter of the plant itself, a flowable bioactiveagrichemical composition in particle form comprising a solid carrierparticle which has been treated with a bioactive acid solution,especially an aqueous or aqueous-based solution, having a pH of lessthan 6, preferably 1.5 to 5, and comprising an acid, especially a weakor moderate acid, at least one antimicrobial metal ion source, and,optionally, though preferably, at least one surfactant, especially atleast one anionic, non-ionic and/or amphoteric surfactant, that impactsor interacts with cell wall membranes of microorganisms, especiallypathogenic microbes, or the function thereof, said acid present in amolar excess, relative to the antimicrobial metal ions, where the amountof antimicrobial metal ion is 500 ppm or less in the case of a singleion or 1000 ppm or less in the case or multiple antimicrobial metalions. Most preferably, the composition according to this method willfurther comprise at least one agent for adhering or enhancing theadherence of the bioactive agrichemical actives to the matter beingtreated. Generally speaking, the inventive bioactive agrichemicalcomposition will be applied at a rate or amount whereby the amount ofthe bioactive acid solution originated antimicrobial metal ion(s)applied will be no more than about 500 grams per acre, preferably nomore than 250 grams per acre.

According to a tenth embodiment of the present invention there isprovided a method of preventing or inhibiting the growth of plantpathogens, especially fungi, bacteria and/or plant, stramenophile andfungi-like protists in agricultural, including horticultural,applications, said method comprising applying to the seeds of thepertinent crop or plant; to the soil in which the seed, crop or plant isor is to be planted; to the aqueous environment in which the plants aregrowing; or to the matter of the plant itself, a flowable bioactiveagrichemical composition in particle form said bioactive agrichemicalcomposition having been made by: i) forming an aqueous solution of anacid, especially a weak or moderate acid, at least one antimicrobialmetal ion source, and, optionally, though preferably, at least onesurfactant, especially at least one anionic, non-ionic and/or amphotericsurfactant, that impacts or interacts with cell wall membranes ofmicroorganisms, especially pathogenic microbes, or the function thereof,said acid present in a molar excess, relative to the antimicrobial metalions, where the amount of antimicrobial metal ion is 500 ppm or less inthe case of a single ion or 1000 ppm or less in the case or multipleantimicrobial metal ions, ii) allowing the water to evaporate to formthe solid bioactive acid and iii) if necessary, grinding or crushing theformed solid bioactive acid to form a powder. Most preferably, thecomposition according to this method will further comprise at least oneagent for adhering or enhancing the adherence of the bioactiveagrichemical actives to the matter being treated. As with the previousembodiment, the formulation of the inventive bioactive agrichemicalcomposition will be such that the antimicrobial metal ion(s) appliedwill be no more than about 500 grams per acre, preferably no more than250 grams per acre.

According to an eleventh embodiment of the present invention there isprovided a method of preventing or inhibiting the growth of plantpathogens, especially fungi, bacteria and/or plant, stramenophile andfungi-like protists in agricultural, including horticultural,applications, said method comprising applying to the seeds of thepertinent crop or plant; to the soil in which the seed, crop or plant isor is to be planted; to the aqueous environment in which the plants aregrowing; or to the matter of the plant itself, liquid bioactiveagrichemical compositions comprising a) a suitable solvent or solventsystem, b) an acid, especially a weak or moderate acid, c) at least oneantimicrobial metal ion source, and d) optionally, though preferably, atleast one surfactant, especially at least one anionic, non-ionic and/oramphoteric surfactant, that impacts or interacts with cell wallmembranes of microorganisms, especially pathogenic microbes, or thefunction thereof, wherein the solution of the acid and solvent has a pHof less than 6, preferably 1.5 to 5, prior to, acid present in a molarexcess relative to the antimicrobial metal ions of the source (c) andwherein the amount of antimicrobial metal ions attributed to the source(c) is 500 ppm or less in the case of a single ion or 1000 ppm or lessin the case or multiple antimicrobial metal ions. Most preferably, thesolvent is water or a water-based solvent system, most preferably water,and the acid and the antimicrobial metal ion source are all wholly orsubstantially soluble or miscible in the solvent. Generally speaking,this formulation of the inventive bioactive agrichemical compositionwill be such that, when applied in use, the application rate or amountof the bioactive acid solution originated antimicrobial metal ion(s)applied will be no more than about 500 grams per acre, preferably nomore than 250 grams per acre.

Inasmuch as a key objective of the present invention is to lessen theamount of metals entering the environment, preferred embodiments of eachof the foregoing embodiments will such that the contribution ofantimicrobial metal ions from the antimicrobial metal ion source will beno more than 300 ppm, most preferably no more than 50 ppm, in the caseof a single antimicrobial metal ion and no more than 500 ppm, preferablyno more than 150 ppm, in the case of multiple antimicrobial metal ions.

Inasmuch as it is also an objective of the present invention to avoidthe use of materials that induce phytotoxicity, the acids are preferablyorganic acids, most preferably carboxylic acids, and/or the bioactiveacid solution, in the diluted state has a pH of greater than 2 and lessthan 6.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The present invention embraces many different embodiments, as set forthabove, all of which have significant degree of common characteristicsand make-up. Yet, while the foregoing sets forth each embodiment in itsmost general respect, there are many aspects of each that are, incertain embodiments, common and others that are unique to theirembodiments. In its most fundamental respect, the invention pertains tobioactive concentrates comprising a) one or more antimicrobial metalions or ion sources, b) an acid or in an acidic solution, and c)optionally, though preferably, one or more surfactants for combating orpreventing the growth or proliferation of fungi, bacteria, viruses, andplant, stramenophile and fungi-like protists, as well as bioactiveagrichemical products and formulated based on diluted forms of theforegoing. These concentrates and agrichemical products may exist insolid or liquid form and may include any number of additives typical fortheir intended end-use application. As bioactive agrichemical materialsand products, these compositions are especially useful, and most oftensynergistically, when combined with or made to include a conventionalagrichemical active or formulated active. The latter compositions aremore fully discussed in and the subject of International PatentApplication No. ______ and U.S. patent application Ser. No. ______ bothof which are entitled “Bioactive Agrichemical Compositions and UseThereof” and were filed on the same day as this application with thesame inventors as the present application, both of which areincorporated herein in their entirety by reference.

For convenience in drafting and simplicity in reading this application,the word “bioactive” is intended to include agents that kill or preventor inhibit the growth and/or proliferation of bacteria, fungi, viruses,and plant, stramenophile and fungi-like protests, particularly thosethat affect or adversely affect, even from a purely esthetic standpoint,plants and trees, especially those associated with the agricultural andhorticultural products including food crops, feed crops, flowers,ornamentals, turf, and the like, i.e., plant pathogens. Oftentimes, thepresent invention is discussed in terms of “fungicides” and “antifungalactivity” as well as fungicidal actives; though it is to be understoodthat it is not limited thereto.

Similarly, the word “active” refers to those compounds or compositionsthat are directly responsible for the bioefficacy of the bioactiveagrichemical in addressing or attacking the target organism. Aformulated active is one that in addition to the active ingredient alsocontains one or more other constituents that may or may not influencethe bioefficacy of the active, but in any event are not themselvesdirectly responsible for killing or preventing the growth of thetargeted microorganism. Further, as a matter of clarification, the terms“bioactive acid composition” and “bioactive acid solution” areoftentimes used herein and relate to the solid and liquid forms,respectively, of the concentrates and diluted forms of the compositionsof the present invention, or both are referred to as the “bioactive acidsolution or composition.”

The acids that may be used in the present invention are either solid orliquid in their natural state, but are readily dissolved in or misciblewith water or an aqueous based solvent or the organic carrier or diluentemployed for the particular application to be addressed. For example, ifone is intending to make an oil or oil-based (or other non-aqueoussolvent based) fungicide, e.g., for use in an aqueous environment,either the components of the bioactive composition must be soluble in ormiscible with the chosen oil or other non-aqueous or lipophilic solventor the aqueous or aqueous-based bioactive acid solution is to becombined with the oil or other non-aqueous or lipophilic solvent to forman emulsion or suspension.

Exemplary acids include the organic acids, especially the carboxylicacids such as citric acid, valeric acid, itaconic acid, acetic,citriconic acid, lactic acid, malic acid, succinic acid, aldaric acid,malonic acid, proprionic acid, malonic acid, maleic acid, salicylicacid, glutaric acid, tartaric acids, benzoic acid and the like, as wellas the mineral acids such as nitric acid, sulfuric acid, phosphoricacid, boric acid, and the like. The preference is for weaker or moderateacids such as aldaric, citric, malic, and lactic acids as opposed to themoderate to strong mineral acids like boric and phosphoric acids.However, strong acids, especially strong mineral acids like sulfuric ornitric acid, may be used; however, depending upon the strength of theacid, it may be preferable to buffer the acid so as to avoid handlingand use problems, especially problems associated with the substrate towhich the bioactive composition is to be applied. This is particularlyimportant for bioactive agrichemical compositions to be applied toplants, animals and crops or foodstuffs since the acid may damage thesubstrate, directly or indirectly. In plants, for example, there isconsiderable concern for phytotoxicity resulting from acid treatmentsalone or in combination with metal compounds such as copper fungicidesand the like. Thus, while efficacious, it is most preferable to avoidmineral acids and, instead, employ carboxylic acids. Additionally,though some suitable acids fall outside of this range, it is desirablethat the pKa (in water @25° C.) of the acid be greater than 0,preferably greater than 1, most preferably greater than 1.5.

Generally speaking, and despite the strong efficacy of phosphoric acidand nitric acid, it is preferred that weak or moderate acids be used.This is especially desirable as it avoids the potential need forbuffering agents, which are not desired. While it is to be appreciatedthat other surfactants, fungicides, wetting agents, emulsifiers, and thelike that may be, and, depending upon the end use application, arelikely to be added to the inventive compositions of the presentinvention, may have a buffering effect on the pH of these bioactivesystems, this effect is not an intended or necessarily desirable effect.Indeed, it may be necessary to add more acid to the composition in orderto maintain the required level of acidity.

As noted, acidity is critical to the efficacy of the bioactiveconcentrates and compositions, especially agrichemical compositions, ofthe present invention. Generally speaking, the pH of the bioactive acidsolution or bioactive acid composition will be less than 6, preferablyfrom about 1.5 to 5 and more preferably from about 2 to about 4, mostpreferably greater than 2. Most preferably, the fully formulated end-useproducts, especially the bioactive agrichemical compositions, of thepresent invention will also meet the foregoing pH limitations when orwhen diluted to that concentration that is to be applied. In the case ofassessing or confirming the pH of the solid bioactive composition or asolid bioactive agrichemical composition according to the presentinvention, the bioactive composition or, as appropriate, the bioactiveagrichemical is first dissolved in water to a concentration equivalentto that at which it would be applied in use, and the pH measured.

The second critical aspect of the acid concentration relates to themolar equivalence to the antimicrobial metal ions present in thebioactive acid composition or bioactive acid solution. At a minimum,there must be a 2 times molar excess, though preferably there is atleast a 5 times, and most preferably at least a 10 times, molar excessacid. These levels are typically attained by formulating bioactive acidsolutions whereby the acid concentration in the final diluted state ofthe bioactive composition is from about 0.01% to about 10%, preferablyfrom about 0.1% to about 4% by weight of the solution. Higherconcentrations may also be used, e.g., up to 20% or more, provided thatthe substrate to which the bioactive composition is to be applied is notaffected by the higher acid content and/or the acid is a weak or weaklymoderate acid. Certainly, higher concentrations will be used in theproduction of concentrates as discussed below.

The second critical component of the bioactive compositions is theantimicrobial metal ion: more aptly its metal ion source. Suitable metalions are selected from the group consisting antimicrobial transitionmetal ions and poor ions that have shown antimicrobial bioefficacy.Preferred metal ions are selected from the group consisting of silver,copper, zinc, mercury, tin, gold, lead, iron, bismuth, cadmium, chromiumand thallium ions or combinations of any two or more of the foregoing.Most preferably, the metal ions are selected from the group consistingof silver, copper and zinc ions and combinations of any two or allthree. Bioactive compositions in which at least two and preferably allthree of these preferred ions are present are especially beneficial andpreferred. Where multiple antimicrobial metal ions are present, eachwill be present in a molar amount of 3 to 97 percent, preferably 9 to 91percent, more preferably 20 to 80 percent. In its preferred embodiment,where multiple metal ions are present, they will be present in an equalamount whereby no one metal ion is more than 20 times, more preferablyno more than 10 times that of any other metal ion. Especially goodresults have been found where each antimicrobial metal ion is present inan equal amount, by weight.

The metal ion is added to the acid solution or, as appropriate, theacid, in the form of a source compound, salt or complex that readilyreleases the ions or otherwise dissociates in the acid solution or whenthe source and acid are dissolved in a solvent, especially water or awater-based solvent. Exemplary salts and organometallic compounds thatmay suitably serve as the ion sources include the respective oxides,sulfides, carbonates, nitrates, phosphates, dihydrogen phosphates,sulfates, oxalates, quinolinolates, thiosulfates, sulfonates,phthalates, hydroxides, glycolates, and the like of the antimicrobialmetals as well as the carboxylic acid salts thereof, especially thesimple carboxylates, such as the citrates, benzoates, acetates,lactates, etc. of said antimicrobial metals. Other salts such as thehalide salts and substituted halide salts, such as the halides,hexafluoroantimonates, tetrafluoroborates, and perchlorates of saidantimicrobial metals may be used though they are less desirable as theytend to have slow and/or poor solubility, especially in water. Specificmetal ion sources include, but are certainly not limited to, silvernitrate, silver oxide, silver acetate, silver citrate, cupric oxide,copper hydroxide, cuprous oxide, copper oxychloride, cupric acetate,copper quinolinolate, copper citrate, zinc oxide, zinc citrate, and thelike.

It has also been surprisingly found that certain inorganic complexes mayalso serve as the metal ion source. Specifically, ion-exchange typeantimicrobial agents and dissolving glass antimicrobial agents may beused where the carrier matrix of these materials is soluble in the acidor diluted acid. For example, it has been found that zeolites arereadily soluble in concentrated citric acid. Here the metal ion sourceor sources are added to the acid with mixing until the particles aredissolved. It is also contemplated that these metal ion sources may beonly partially dissolved so as to provide for a longer term source ofthe antimicrobial metal ion. While these ion sources tend to dissolve inthe diluted acid, to speed up and/or enhance the dissolving of the metalion source, it is preferable to dissolve them in a concentrated acidsolution, preferably one of from about 40% to 80% concentration.

Suitable ion-exchange type agents include, but are not limited toaluminosilicates, zeolites, hydroxyapatite, and zirconium phosphates,all of which are commercially available and/or fully described in thepatent literature. For example, antimicrobial metal ion-containinghydroxyapatite particles are described in, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos.5,009,898 and 5,268,174; antimicrobial metal ion-containing zirconiumphosphates are described in, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,025,608; 4,059,679;5,296,238; 5,441,717 and 5,405,644 as well as in the Journal ofAntibacterial and Antifungal Agents, Vol. 22, No. 10, pp. 595-601, 1994;and antimicrobial metal ion-containing aluminosilicates and zeolites aredescribed in, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,911,898; 4,911,899; 4,938,955;4,938,958; 4,906,464; and 4,775,585, all of the aforementioned patentshereby being incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.Suitable soluble glasses include those described in, e.g., U.S. Pat. No.5,470,585, which is also incorporated herein by reference in itsentirety.

While individual metal ion sources may be used, it is also desirable touse combinations of metal ion sources so as to provide a mixture ofmetal ions. In certain instances, a single source may provide multiplemetal ions. For example, preferred ion-exchange type metal ion sourcesinclude AgION AJ10D which contains both silver and zinc ions and AgIONAC10D which includes both silver and copper ions. Most preferably, themetal ion sources are the readily soluble salts and compounds, asmentioned above, and most preferably the combination of such compoundswhereby solutions having equal or relatively equal concentrations ofeach of silver, copper and zinc ions are prepared. Suitable combinationsinclude combinations of silver citrate, copper citrate and zinc citrateas well as combinations of silver nitrate, copper sulfate and zincoxide.

The amount of the antimicrobial metal ion source to be incorporated intothe acid solution or, as appropriate, to be combined with the acid isthat which is sufficient to provide a concentration of from about 1 ppmto about 500 ppm, preferably from about 1 ppm to about 300 ppm, morepreferably about 2 ppm to about 100 ppm, most preferably from about 5 toabout 50 ppm of each antimicrobial metal ion, in the bioactive acidsolution or bioactive acid composition at its diluted, end-useconcentration. Where multiple metal ions and/or metal ion sources areused to provide combinations of metal ions, the total concentration ofmetal ions in the solutions should be from about 2 ppm to about 1000ppm, preferably from about 2 ppm to about 500 ppm, more preferably fromabout 5 ppm to 300 ppm, most preferably from about 5 ppm to about 150ppm, in the bioactive acid solution or bioactive acid composition at itsdiluted, end-use concentration. Of course higher levels could be usedbut are not necessary to provide suitable bioefficacy and, moreimportantly, such higher use conflicts with the desired intent ofminimizing metal addition to the environment. Thus, in following withsaid objective, it is preferable to use the minimal, or nearly so,amount possible for the desired application.

In agricultural and horticultural applications, phytotoxicity isespecially of concern. Thus, in accordance with the agricultural andhorticultural applications of this invention, especially for applicationto seedlings and plants, the level of the metals should be less thanwould otherwise cause phytotoxicity. Most preferably, as noted above,the objective is to use as low a level of metal ion as is reasonablypossible yet continue to provide the benefits desired, especiallyfungicidal, protisticidal, and/or antimicrobial properties. This concernis especially pertinent to those compositions containing copper alone orin combination with one or more of the other antimicrobial metal ionsand most especially, where the bioactive acid solution or composition isto contain or be used in conjunction with another copper or copper-basedmaterial. In this respect, it should be noted that the aforementionedlimitations on the antimicrobial metal ions refers only to thoseantimicrobial metal ions contributed by the one or more sources ofantimicrobial metal ions associated with the bioactive acid solution orbioactive acid composition, and not to the copper or any otherantimicrobial metals or metal ions that may be contributed by othercompounds or materials to be used in conjunction or in combination withthe bioactive acid solutions or bioactive acid compositions.

Optionally, though preferably, the bioactive acid solutions or bioactiveacid compositions, and, in any event, the bioactive agrichemicalcompositions of the present invention include one or more surfactants,especially water soluble surfactants. Although good results have beenachieved in weak and moderate acid bioactive acid solutions without thesurfactants, the use of the surfactant should be and is generallypreferred with such acids. Furthermore, while certain strong and verystrong acids, especially mineral acids, do not warrant the need forsurfactants, e.g., phosphoric acid, it is especially desirable, and insome instances necessary, e.g., where other than only short termbioefficacy is desired, to employ one or more surfactants. Especiallypreferred surfactants are those that affect or interact with cell wallsor membranes of microorganisms, especially pathogenic microbes, or theirfunction. Suitable surfactants include anionic, cationic, non-ionic andamphoteric (e.g., zwitterionic) surfactants, especially those that arewater soluble or show relatively good water solubility. Preferably thesurfactants are anionic, non-ionic and/or amphoteric surfactants such asthe sulfonates, sulfates, sulfosuccinates, sarcosinates, mono anddiglycerides, amine oxides, ether carboxylates, betaines, sulfobetaines,gylcinates and the like. Generally, cationic and those non-ionicsurfactants having polyalkylether units, especially polyethylene oxideunits, with degrees of polymerization of the alkylene ether unit ofgreater than about 6 do not show the same level of effectives inproviding synergy to the bioactive compositions as the othersurfactants. Nonetheless, such surfactants may be used in combinationwith effective surfactants so long as they do not materially detractfrom or reduce the bioefficacy of the compositions.

The surfactant is typically used in conventional amounts, i.e., will beadded to the bioactive acid solutions or bioactive acid compositions inan amount whereby the concentration of the surfactant in the end-usediluted state of the bioactive agrichemical compositions is consistenttheir use level in traditional fungicides. Generally speaking, thesurfactant will be present in an amount of from about 0.001% to about3%, preferably from about 0.01% to about 0.5%, by weight based on thetotal weight of the bioactive acid solution or bioactive acidcomposition in the diluted state. While higher loadings could be used,it is not necessary to manifest the desired synergy in bioefficacy.Generally, where the surfactant is basic in nature or one thathydrolyzes in water to form a basic solution, the amount should beminimized and/or the amount of acid increased so as to avoid too muchneutralization of the bioactive acid solution.

Exemplary anionic surfactants and classes of anionic surfactantssuitable for use in the practice of the present invention include:alcohol sulfates; alcohol ether sulfates; alkylaryl ether sulfates;alkylaryl sulfonates such as alkylbenzene sulfonates andalkylnaphthalene sulfonates and salts thereof; alkyl sulfonates; mono-or di-phosphate esters of polyalkoxylated alkyl alcohols oralkylphenols; mono- or di-sulfosuccinate esters of C₁₂ to C₁₅ alkanolsor polyalkoxylated C₁₂ to C₁₅ alkanols; alcohol ether carboxylates;phenolic ether carboxylates; polybasic acid esters of ethoxylatedpolyoxyalkylene glycols consisting of oxybutylene or the residue oftetrahydrofuran; sulfoalkylamides and salts thereof such asN-methyl-N-oleoyltaurate Na salt; polyoxyalkylene alkylphenolcarboxylates; polyoxyalkylene alcohol carboxylates alkylpolyglycoside/alkenyl succinic anhydride condensation products; alkylester sulfates; naphthalene sulfonates; naphthalene formaldehydecondensates; alkyl sulfonamides; sulfonated aliphatic polyesters;sulfate esters of styrylphenyl alkoxylates; and sulfonate esters ofstyrylphenyl alkoxylates and their corresponding sodium, potassium,calcium, magnesium, zinc, ammonium, alkylammonium, diethanolammonium, ortriethanolammonium salts; salts of ligninsulfonic acid such as thesodium, potassium, magnesium, calcium or ammonium salt; polyarylphenolpolyalkoxyether sulfates and polyarylphenol polyalkoxyether phosphates;and sulfated alkyl phenol ethoxylates and phosphated alkyl phenolethoxylates; sodium lauryl sulfate; sodium laureth sulfate; ammoniumlauryl sulfate; ammonium laureth sulfate; sodium methyl cocoyl taurate;sodium lauroyl sarcosinate; sodium cocoyl sarcosinate; potassium cocohydrolyzed collagen; TEA (triethanolamine) lauryl sulfate; TEA(Triethanolamine) laureth sulfate; lauryl or cocoyl sarcosine; disodiumoleamide sulfosuccinate; disodium laureth sulfosuccinate; disodiumdioctyl sulfosuccinate; N-methyl-N-oleoyltaurate Na salt;tristyrylphenol sulphate; ethoxylated lignin sulfonate; ethoxylatednonylphenol phosphate ester; calcium alkylbenzene sulfonate; ethoxylatedtridecylalcohol phosphate ester; dialkyl sulfosuccinates; perfluoro(C₆-C₁₈)alkyl phosphonic acids; perfluoro(C₆-C₁₈)alkyl-phosphinic acids;perfluoro(C₃-C₂₀)alkyl esters of carboxylic acids; alkenyl succinic aciddiglucamides; alkenyl succinic acid alkoxylates; sodium dialkylsulfosuccinates; and alkenyl succinic acid alkylpolyglykosides.

Exemplary amphoteric and cationic surfactants includealkylpolyglycosides; betaines; sulfobetaines; glycinates; alkanol amidesof C₈ to C₁₈ fatty acids and C₈ to C₁₈ fatty amine polyalkoxylates; C₁₀to C₁₈ alkyldimethylbenzylammonium chlorides; coconutalkyldimethylaminoacetic acids; phosphate esters of C₈ to C₁₈ fattyamine polyalkoxylates; alkylpolyglycosides (APG) obtainable from aacid-catalyzed Fischer reaction of starch or glucose syrups with fattyalcohols, in particular C₈ to C₁₈ alcohols, especially the C₈ to C₁₀ andC₁₂ to C₁₄ alkylpolyglycosides having a degree of polymerization of 1.3to 1.6., in particular 1.4 or 1.5.

Exemplary non-ionic surfactants and classes of non-ionic surfactantsinclude: polyarylphenol polyethoxy ethers; polyalkylphenol polyethoxyethers; polyglycol ether derivatives of saturated fatty acids;polyglycol ether derivatives of unsaturated fatty acids; polyglycolether derivatives of aliphatic alcohols; polyglycol ether derivatives ofcycloaliphatic alcohols; fatty acid esters of polyoxyethylene sorbitan;alkoxylated vegetable oils; alkoxylated acetylenic diols;polyalkoxylated alkylphenols; fatty acid alkoxylates; sorbitanalkoxylates; sorbitol esters; C₈ to C₂₂ alkyl or alkenyl polyglycosides;polyalkoxy styrylaryl ethers; alkylamine oxides; block copolymer ethers;polyalkoxylated fatty glyceride; polyalkylene glycol ethers; linearaliphatic or aromatic polyesters; organo silicones; polyaryl phenols;sorbitol ester alkoxylates; and mono- and diesters of ethylene glycoland mixtures thereto; ethoxylated tristyrylphenol; ethoxylated fattyalcohol; ethoxylated lauryl alcohol; ethoxylated castor oil; andethoxylated nonylphenol; alkoxylated alcohols, amines or acids, mixturesthereof as well as mixtures thereof with diluents and solid carriers, inparticular clathrates thereof with urea. The alkoxylated alcohols,amines or acids are preferably based on alkoxy units having 2 carbonatoms, thus being a mixed ethoxylate, or 2 and 3 carbon atoms, thusbeing a mixed ethoxylate/propoxylated, and having at least 5 alkoxymoieties, suitably from 5 to 25 alkoxy moieties, preferably 5 to 20, inparticular 5 to 15, in the alkoxy chain. The aliphatic moieties of theamine or acid alkoxylated may be straight chained or branched of 9 to24, preferably 12 to 20, carbon atoms. The alcohol moiety of the alcoholalkoxylates is as a rule derived from a C₉-C₁₈ aliphatic alcohol, whichmay be non-branched or branched, especially monobranched. Preferredalcohols are typically 50% by weight straight-chained and 50% by weightbranched alcohols.

As noted above, the aforementioned surfactants may be used alone or incombination. Furthermore, while not all of the surfactants mentionedabove will provide the desired synergy when used alone with the metalsand acids, depending upon the ultimate end-use application for thebioactive agrichemical compositions of the present invention, they maynevertheless be used in combination with the synergistic surfactants fortheir intended function. For example, certain of the aforementionedsurfactants may enhance the dispersion of the actives in the solvent ormay enhance the wetting out of the substrate to which the inventivebioactive compositions of the present invention are applied, e.g.,plants, seeds, and soil in the case of agrichemical compositions andcountertops, touch surfaces, etc. in the case of disinfectants. All ofthese surfactant materials are well known and commercially available.Furthermore, those skilled in the art, without undue experimentation,will readily appreciate which surfactants and/or combinations ofsurfactants, in addition to the synergist surfactants, may be used forthe specific end-use application. Again, it is important that whenadditional surfactants are employed for other purposes they notinterfere with or have minimal interference with the synergy thatresults from the desired surfactants, i.e., those that show synergy inproviding antimicrobial, including antibacterial and/or antifungal,activity when used in combination with the acid and metal ions.

If any interference exists and the other surfactant is necessary orotherwise desired for the application, then its use should be minimizedto produce the least adverse impact on the synergy and/or attributes ofthe active components of the inventive bioactive agrichemicals of thepresent invention while manifesting the desired property for which it isto be employed. Furthermore, if there is concern with such interference,especially if the surfactants are used or to be used in an amount thatwill neutralize the acid of the bioactive compositions so as to renderthem outside of the claimed range, then those surfactants may still beadded but not until the time of application. In essence the bioactivecompositions of the present inventions may be employed as two- or morepart systems to be mixed when applied or when preparing the dilutedcompositions, which are then to be immediately applied. Most preferably,it is best to avoid the use of such surfactants or those amounts of saidsurfactants that will adversely affect the bioefficacy of the claimedcompositions.

As noted above, the bioactive compositions of the present invention maybe used in conjunction or in combination with one or more otherconventional bioactive agrichemical actives or formulations suitable forthe intended end-use. Furthermore, as also noted above and in theaforementioned co-pending, co-filed pending International and UnitedStates patent applications, the combined use of the claimed bioactiveacid solution or composition with other conventional bioactiveagrichemical actives and formulations, particularly fungicides,oftentimes results in enhanced bioefficacy, a synergy that is otherwiseunexpected. For example, previously non-efficacious levels ofconventional bioactive actives are rendered efficacious as a result ofthe presence of the bioactive acid solution or composition. Similarly,these combinations oftentimes enable one to achieve the same level ofbioefficacy with less than conventional application rates or amounts ofthe conventional bioactive agrichemical active. Additionally, and ofparticular significance, the combination is also believed to reduce theincidence of and/or the speed with which bio-resistance to conventionalagrichemicals, especially the synthetic organic agrichemicals, ismanifested in target organisms. Thus, the commercial life expectancy ofthese and future conventional agrichemical actives is likely to beincreased and the generation of superbugs or resistant strains of thebacterial fungi, protists and the like decreased or delayed.

The bioactive agrichemical compositions according to the presentinvention can be used alone or, preferably and advantageously, they areused in combination with (typically as a mixture) one or more othercompatible components or additives typical of agrichemical treatmentsand compositions including, for example, solid or liquid fillers ordiluents, adjuvants, surfactants or equivalents, which are suitable forthe desired use and which are acceptable for use, from an environmental,health and safety as well as regulatory perspective, in the particularintended end-use application. This is especially so for thoseapplications where the bioactive compositions are to be used inagriculture: whether as a soil, seed, or plant treatment or in thetreatment of foodstuffs, prior to or following harvest. In following,the formulations can also contain ingredients of other types, such asprotective colloids, adjuvants, binders, rain fasteners, thickeners,thixotropic agents, penetrating agents, oils for spraying, stabilizers,antifreeze agents, defoaming agents, foaming agents, corrosioninhibitors, dyes, or the like, as well as other known active ingredientswhich have pesticidal properties (in particular fungicidal,insecticidal, acaricidal or nematicidal properties) or, in the case ofin-field agricultural applications, which have plant-growth-regulatingproperties.

The nature and amount of the additives to be employed in the bioactiveagrichemical compositions of the present invention depends, in part,upon the end-use application and the form in which the composition is totake. Specifically, the bioactive compositions of the present inventionmay be in the form of and/or manufactured into e.g. emulsionconcentrates, solutions, oil in water emulsions, wettable powders,soluble powders, suspension concentrates, dusts, granules, waterdispersible granules, micro-capsules, gels, tablets and otherformulation types by well-established procedures. The specific proceduretypically includes intensive mixing and/or milling of the bioactivecompositions with the other substances. The form of application such asspraying, atomizing, dispersing, dusting, pouring and the like may bechosen based on the compositions to be applied, the desired objectives,and the given circumstances.

Although the typical definition of “filler” is a material added for theprimary purpose of adding bulk, in the present application, “fillers”typically have function and utility and generally refer to organic orinorganic, natural or synthetic components with which the activecomponents are combined to facilitate their application, for example,onto plants, seeds or the soil, for example as a carrier. These fillersare generally inert and must be acceptable for the intended application,especially for agronomic uses, in particular for treating plants.

The filler can be solid, for example clays, natural or syntheticsilicates, silica, resins, waxes, solid fertilizers (for exampleammonium salts), natural soil minerals, such as kaolins, clays, talc,lime, calcium carbonate, quartz, attapulgite, montmorillonite, bentoniteor diatomaceous earths, or synthetic minerals, such as silica, aluminaor silicates, in particular aluminium or magnesium silicates. The solidfillers which are suitable for granules are as follows: natural, crushedor broken rocks, such as calcites, marble, pumice, sepiolite ordolomite; synthetic granules of inorganic or organic flours; granules oforganic material such as sawdust, coconut shell, corn ear or envelope,or tobacco stem; kieselguhr, tricalcium phosphate, powdered cork oradsorbent carbon black; water-soluble polymers, resins, waxes; or solidfertilizers. Such compositions can, if so desired, contain one or morecompatible agents such as wetting agents, dispersing agents, emulsifiersor dyes which, when they are solid, can also act as diluents. Where theadditives are alkaline and will likely increase the pH of thecompositions, e.g., talc, lime, calcium carbonate, and marble, theamount by which they are added should not cause the pH to exceed theclaimed ranges or additional acid should be added to maintain thedesired pH. Preferably, such materials should be avoided altogether.

The fillers can also be liquids, for example: water, alcohols, inparticular butanol or glycol, as well as ethers or esters thereof, inparticular methyl glycol acetate; ketones, in particular acetone,cyclohexanone, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl isobutyl ketone orisophorone; petroleum fractions such as paraffinic or aromatichydrocarbons, in particular xylenes or alkylnaphthalenes; mineral orplant oils; aliphatic chlorohydrocarbons, in particular trichloroethaneor methylene chloride; aromatic chlorohydrocarbons, in particularchlorobenzenes; water-soluble or highly polar solvents such asdimethylformamide, dimethyl sulphoxide, N,N-dimethylacetamide orN-methylpyrrolidone; N-octylpyrrolidone, liquefied gases; or the like,whether they are taken separately or as a mixture.

As mentioned above, depending upon the end-use application, theinventive bioactive agrichemical compositions or formulations willcontain one or more additional surfactants (additional to thesurfactant(s) that are optionally part of the bioactive acid solution orbioactive acid composition) as emulsifiers, dispersing agents, wettingagents and the like. These additional surfactants may be cationic,anionic, nonionic or amphoteric surfactants or mixtures of thesesurfactants. Among those surfactants which are used, for example, arepolyacrylic acid salts, lignosulphonic acid salts, phenolsulphonic ornaphthalenesulphonic acid salts, polycondensates of ethylene oxide withfatty alcohols or fatty acids or fatty esters or fatty amines,substituted phenols (in particular alkylphenols or arylphenols),ester-salts of sulphosuccinic acid, taurine derivatives (in particularalkyl taurates), phosphoric esters of alcohols or of polycondensates ofethylene oxide with phenols, fatty acid esters with polyols, orsulphate, sulphonate or phosphate functional derivatives of theforegoing compounds as well as those surfactants described aboverelative to the synergistic surfactant for the bioactive composition.Here, however, the surfactants are generally present at much higherconcentrations versus that needed to show synergy with respect to theacid/metal combination. The presence of at least one additionalsurfactant is generally essential when the active materials and/or theinert filler are insoluble or only sparingly soluble in water and whenthe filler for the said composition to be applied is water. For foliarapplications, the choice of surfactants is oftentimes paramount forobtaining good bioavailability of the active material(s); thus, acombination of a surfactant of hydrophilic nature (HLB>10) and asurfactant of lipophilic nature (HLB<5) will preferably be used.

In agricultural applications as well as in applications where it isdesired to affix the bioactive composition to a surface, thecompositions will typically have a binder, rain fastener, or otheradhesive type components. Suitable binders are well known and include,e.g., water-soluble and water-dispersible film-forming polymers.Suitable polymers have an average molecular weight of at least about1,000 up to about 100,000; more specifically at least about 5,000, up toabout 100,000. The aqueous compositions generally contain from about0.5% to about 10%, preferable from about 1.0% to about 5%, by weight ofthe composition of the binder, film-forming polymer and the like.Suitable film-forming polymers include, but are not limited to a)alkyleneoxide random and block copolymers such as ethyleneoxide-propylene oxide block copolymers (EO/PO block copolymers)including both EO-PO-EO and PO-EO-PO block copolymers; ethyleneoxide-butylene oxide random and block copolymers, C₂-C₆ alkyl adducts ofethylene oxide-propylene oxide random and block copolymers, C₂-C₆ alkyladducts of ethylene oxide-butylene oxide random and block copolymers; b)polyoxyethylene-polyoxypropylene monoalkylethers such as methyl ether,ethyl ether, propyl ether, butyl ether or mixtures thereof; c)vinylacetate/-vinylpyrrolidone copolymers, d) alkylated vinylpyrrolidonecopolymers, e) polyvinylpyrrolidone, and f) polyalkyleneglycol includingthe polypropylene glycols and polyethylene glycols. Specific examples ofsuitable polymers include Pluronic P103 (BASF) (EO-PO-EO blockcopolymer), Pluronic P65 (BASF) (EO-PO-EO block copolymer), PluronicP108 (BASF) (EO-PO-EO block copolymer), Vinamul 18160 (National Starch)(polyvinylacetate), Agrimer 30 (ISP) (polyvinylpyrrolidone), AgrimerVA7w (ISP) (vinyl acetate/vinylpyrrolidone copolymer), Agrimer AL 10(ISP) (alkylated vinylpyrrolidone copolymer), PEG 400 (Uniqema)(polyethylene glycol), Pluronic R 25R2 (BASF) (PO-EO-PO blockcopolymer), Pluronic R 31R1 (BASF) (PO-EO-PO block copolymer) andWitconol NS 500LQ (Witco) (butanol PO-EO copolymer).

Additional adhesive and adhesive type materials that may be used includecarboxymethylcellulose, or natural or synthetic polymers in the form ofpowders, granules or matrices, such as gum arabic, latex,polyvinylpyrrolidone, polyvinyl alcohol or polyvinyl acetate, naturalphospholipids, such as cephalins or lecithins, or syntheticphospholipids can be used in the formulations.

It may also be desirable to thicken the bioactive compositions andformulations, especially where there is concern that the compositionwill quickly run off or run down the substrate to which it is applied.Suitable thickeners include water-soluble polymers which exhibitpseudoplastic and/or thixotropic properties in an aqueous medium such asgum arabic, gum karaya, gum tragacanth, guar gum, locust bean gum,xanthan gum, carrageenan, alginate salt, casein, dextran, pectin, agar,2-hydroxyethyl starch, 2-aminoethyl starch, 2-hydroxyethyl cellulose,methyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose salt, cellulose sulfate salt,polyacrylamide, alkali metal salts of the maleic anhydride copolymers,alkali metal salts of poly(meth)acrylate, and the like. As suitablethickeners, including thixotropes, there may also be mentionedattapulgite-type clay, silica, fumed silica, carrageenan, croscarmellosesodium, furcelleran, glycerol, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose,polystyrene, vinylpyrrolidone/styrene block copolymer, hydroxypropylcellulose, hydroxypropyl guar gum, and sodium carboxymethylcellulose.Xanthan gum is preferred.

In the case of bioactive agrichemical compositions that are or may besubject to freezing during storage or use, especially aqueous andaqueous-based concentrates and solutions, it is desirable to addantifreeze additives. Specific examples of suitable antifreezes includeethylene glycol, 1,2-propylene glycol, 1,3-propylene glycol,1,2-butanediol, 1,3-butanediol, 1,4-butanediol, 1,4-pentanediol,3-methyl-1,5-pentanediol, 2,3-dimethyl-2,3-butanediol, trimethylolpropane, mannitol, sorbitol, glycerol, pentaerythritol,1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, xylenol, bisphenols such as bisphenol A orthe like. In addition, ether alcohols such as diethylene glycol,triethylene glycol, tetraethylene glycol, polyoxyethylene orpolyoxypropylene glycols of molecular weight up to about 4000,diethylene glycol monomethylether, diethylene glycol monoethylether,triethylene glycol monomethylether, butoxyethanol, butylene glycolmonobutylether, dipentaerythritol, tripentaerythritol,tetrapentaerythritol, diglycerol, triglycerol, tetraglycerol,pentaglycerol, hexaglycerol, heptaglycerol, octaglycerol and the like.As a particular subset of suitable antifreeze materials there can bementioned ethylene glycol, propylene glycol and glycerin.

It is possible to use dyes such as inorganic pigments, such as, forexample: iron oxides, titanium oxides, Prussian blue; organic dyestuffs,such as those of the alizarin, azo or metal phthalocyanin type; or oftrace elements such as iron, manganese, boron, copper, cobalt,molybdenum or zinc salts. The use of such dyes enables one to determinewhich areas and substrates, including plants, have been treated with thebioactive composition. Such marking is especially important for avariety of applications and reasons. For example, the use of dyes inseed treatments will enable a quick visual determination of which seedshave and have not been treated. Similarly, in disinfectant applications,for example in a biotechnology laboratories, microbiology laboratories,food and/or pharmaceutical manufacturing and processing facilities andthe like, the use of they dye, will allow those performing the cleaningoperation to ensure that all surfaces are treated. Here, for example,the material could be applied and allowed to sit for a brief periodbefore being wiped to leave the cleaned surface. Further, in aerial,drop or broadcast application, it enables the pilot or driver of thedispensing vehicle see what areas have already been treated.

Although not all additives and adjuvants have been described above,those skilled in the art, particularly in the art pertinent to thespecific end-use application anticipated, will certainly appreciate whatother ingredients, additives and the like would or should be used fortheir application. The amount by which each additive is to beincorporated into the compositions will, once again, depend upon theend-use application and the method of application and environment intowhich it is to be employed. Generally, though, the selection and amountis that which is conventional for such additives in such applications.However, with the selection of any additives, it is important to ensurethat they will not interfere with the bioactivity of the compositions ofthe present invention or that any such interference will be minimized soas to enable one to take the most advantage of the bioactivecompositions of the present invention. Those skilled in the art, basedupon the teachings set forth herein and in the following examples, willappreciate where attention is due and, in any event, such can beaddressed by simple screening applications.

As noted above, it is important to avoid the use of conventionalbioactive agrichemical actives as well as any other additives andcomponents, including those of the types mentioned above, that interferewith or adversely affect the bioefficacy of the compositions accordingto the present invention. Most especially, it is important to avoid theuse of those agrichemical actives and other additives or compounds thatare known to or will likely irreversibly or strongly sequester, bind, orcomplex with the antimicrobial metal ions in solution. In following, notintending to be bound by theory, it is believed that retention of theantimicrobial metal ionic charge is important for maintainingbioefficacy. For example, especially with respect to copper ions, it isbest to avoid the use of ammonium salts such as ammonium sulphate,ammonium chloride, ammonium citrate, ammonium phosphate. To the extentany such materials are present or to be used, their use or, moreaccurately, the amount thereof, should be minimized and/or the metal ionconcentration increased to offset the loss of free ions in solutioncompounds.

The compositions of the present invention may be made by any knownmethod for formulating agrichemical compositions, especiallyantimicrobial and antifungal type compositions. Generally speaking,whether making a concentrate or the application ready bioactiveagrichemical compositions of the present invention or whether making aliquid system or a solid system, the bioactive acid solution or, ifapplicable, the solid bioactive acid composition is prepared before theaddition of a conventional bioactive agrichemical active or formulationand/or other conventional agrichemical additives and agents.

The bioactive acid solution may be prepared in a number of conventionalways. For example, each component may be dissolved in the appropriatesolvent, most notably water or a water-based solvent, and the solutionscombined in the appropriate proportions. To some extent, the sequence ofthe addition and whether a pre-concentrate of the acid in the solvent isformed depends upon the solubility of the solids themselves. Preferably,the acid is initially dissolved in the appropriate solvent to thedesired concentration. Where one is intending to form a concentrate, theamount of acid to be dissolved in the solvent should be such that theacid concentration is at least 40 percent and preferably form 40 to 80percent. The antimicrobial metal ion source or sources are thendissolved in the concentrated acidic solution. This method may also beused in preparing a non-concentrated bioactive agrichemical compositionwhere the rate at which the antimicrobial metal ion source or sourcesdissolves is increased with higher acid concentration. For example, asmentioned above, where the metal ion source is an antimicrobial metalion containing ion-exchange type agent, especially those whose core is azeolite, the use of concentrated acids has been found to readilydissolve the zeolite. Thereafter, the concentrated solution is merelydiluted to the desired concentration after the solids are dissolved.

Where there is difficulty in dissolving the antimicrobial metal sourceor sources in the concentrated or dilute acid solution, or the rate isundesirably slow, the antimicrobial metal ion source or sources mayfirst be dissolved in water or another suitable aqueous-based solventand that combined with the formed acid solution. Here, the acid solutionis preferably of a higher concentration than intended in the bioactiveacid solution so as to account for the dilution upon adding thedissolved antimicrobial metal ion source or sources.

Similarly, whether preparing concentrates or final, end-useformulations, it may be desirable to make individual stock solutions ofeach of the components of the bioactive acid solution which stocksolutions are then combined in the appropriate proportions. Again, theconcentration of each stock solution would be tailored to account forthe dilution upon their combination. Obviously, for formingconcentrates, the stock solutions will typically be of higherconcentration than might otherwise be necessary if using the stocksolutions for preparing the final, end-use diluted formulations.

In each of the foregoing instances, the solvent/solutions may be heatedand are preferably agitated to expedite the dissolving of the solids inthe liquid system. Furthermore, while the dissolution of antimicrobialmetal ion source or sources is perhaps the simplest and most costeffective method of the preparation of the bioactive acid solutions,these bioactive acid solutions may also be prepared by, e.g.,electrolytically generating the metal ion in acid solutions as seen inArata et. al. (U.S. Pat. No. 6,197,814; US 2003/0198689A1, US2003/0178374A1; US2005/0245605A1 and US2006/0115440A1, all of which areincorporated herein by reference in their entirety) or by hightemperature and pressure as seen in Cummins et. al. (U.S. Pat. No.7,192,618, incorporated herein be reference).

The surfactants may be added to the bioactive acid solution or theconcentrate or may be added concurrent with or subsequent to thecombination of the bioactive acid solution with the conventionalbioactive agrichemical composition.

When desiring to make a liquid bioactive acid solution concentrate, onemay prepare the highly concentrated solution as discussed above or makea somewhat diluted form which is then further concentrated by allowingsome of the solvent to evaporate. This is particularly beneficial wherethe antimicrobial metal ion source or sources and/or the surfactantsand/or other constituents are not soluble in and/or or are notsufficiently and/or expeditiously dissolved in the acid solution.

Depending upon the ultimate form of the inventive bioactive agrichemicalcomposition, it may likewise be desirable to prepare a solid bioactiveacid composition concentrate. These solid bioactive acid compositionconcentrates may also be made in a number of ways. For example, theacid, the antimicrobial metal ion source or sources and, if present, thesurfactant can be dry blended. Dry blending is still possible even ifthe surfactant or one of the surfactants is a liquid since the amountemployed is so low and will be adsorbed or absorbed by the drymaterials. The dry blended materials may be employed as is or arepreferably compressed to form granules. Alternatively, the solidbioactive acid composition concentrate can be formed by first preparingthe bioactive acid solution concentrate mentioned above, using avolatile solvent, e.g., water or a water-base solvent, and then allowingthe solvent to evaporate to leave the solid material. As necessary, thesolid material is then crushed or ground to form small particles, powderor granules, of the solid bioactive acid composition.

The solid bioactive acid composition concentrate may be used to form theliquid bioactive acid solution as a concentrate or as its final, end-usediluted form. In the former, the solid concentrate is dissolved in asminimal a volume of an appropriate solvent, notably water or a waterbased solvent, to form the concentrate. If need be or desired,especially if dissolving is hastened, a larger volume of the solvent maybe employed and then partially evaporated to concentrate the materials.

Solid bioactive acid compositions in their final, end-use dilution maybe prepared by dry blending the acid, the antimicrobial metal ion sourceor sources and the surfactant with a solid filler material or theaforementioned solid bioactive acid composition concentrate may be letdown or diluted with solid filler materials. Alternatively, andpreferably, the solid bioactive acid composition is prepared by treatinga filler material with a bioactive acid solution. Here the liquidbioactive acid solution is applied to or combined with the fillermaterial, which is preferably in particle form, and is adsorbed byand/or absorbed by the particles of the filler. For example, a mist ofthe bioactive acid solution may be sprayed or a steady or intermittentstream of the bioactive acid solution may be poured onto the particlesas they are tumbled, stirred, etc. This embodiment has the addedadvantage that the amount or concentration of liquid acid solutionapplied to the adsorbent or absorbent carrier or conventional bioactiveagrichemical active for formulated active can be higher than would beapplied in the liquid diluted state so as to allow for longer termbioefficacy. In essence, the treated carrier or conventional activeserves as a reservoir of the bioactive components of the liquid acidsolution.

Given the high transportation costs and the ease of dilution, it is mostpreferable and cost effective to prepare concentrates, especially liquidconcentrates, of the inventive bioactive agrichemical compositions whichconcentrates are then diluted or let down at the time of application.These liquid concentrates are then diluted or let down with anappropriate solvent, especially water or a water based solvent, to thedesired concentration for application.

The bioactive agrichemical compositions of the present invention have amyriad of agricultural and horticultural applications including asfungicides, bactericides, and/or plant, stramenophile and fungi-likeprotisticides and may be applied to seeds, soils, plants, trees, and thelike. These compositions show particular promise as fungicides,bactericides, and plant, stramenophile and fungi-like protisticides dueto their unique and surprising strong bioefficacy at extremely lowlevels of antimicrobial metals. For example, the use of these materialsallows for effective rates of applications wherein, for example, theamount of copper to be applied is on the order of grams per acre, notkilograms as is necessary with conventional copper and copper basedfungicides.

Besides the marked bioefficacy at such low levels of antimicrobial metalion, another attribute of the inventive bioactive agrichemicalcompositions is that they have no or little phytotoxicity. This isespecially important since a bioeffective material that severely damagesor kills the plant concurrent with killing the target organism is oflittle use unless one is not concerned with losing a crop and is mostinterested in controlling the target organism before it gets out ofcontrol. Another important and beneficial factor associated with theinventive compositions is the fact that they do not and are not likelyto induce or be associated with any resistance in the target organisms.This contrasts sharply with the use of organic bioactive agrichemicals,especially fungicides and antibiotics, for which studies and actualcommercial practice has shown a marked and growing tendency ofresistance among the targeted organisms, even within a few years or lessof their first use. The development of such bioactive agrichemicalresistant microorganisms, while bothersome at the present time, couldlead to catastrophic results if unchecked.

Typically, the rate of application of the inventive bioactiveagrichemical compositions of the present invention is such that thetotal amount of antimicrobial metal ions (as metal) originated from thedissolved antimicrobial metal ion source or sources applied per acrewill be about 200 grams or less, preferably 100 grams or less, morepreferably 50 grams or less, most preferably 20 grams or less. Of coursethe specific application rate and, thus, the total amount applied peracre, will vary from target organism to target organism, from one formto another and from one application method to another. Indeed, suitablerates may be such that the total metal ion (as metal) may be on theorder of 5 grams per acre, even on the order of fractions of a gram peracre, perhaps as low as 0.5 grams per acre or even 0.05 grams per acre.While higher loadings, higher than 200 grams per acre, may provide evengreater or faster bioefficacy, the trade-off of increased environmental,health and safety concerns does not generally warrant or is nottypically justified by the increased, oftentimes nominal increase, inbioefficacy.

The bioactive agrichemical compositions of the present invention may beapplied to any number of agricultural, including horticultural, cropsincluding ornamental plants, shrubs and trees; flowering plants;fruiting trees, vegetable crops; feed crops; ornamental grasses andturf; etc. Exemplary crops that are of particular concern due to theirsignificant economic and food source impact include soy beans, tomatoes,potatoes, apples, peanuts, grapes, almonds, sugarbeets and citrus.Diseases and microorganisms to be targeted by the bioactive agrichemicalcompositions of the present invention include, but are not limited tocitrus canker; soybean rust; leaf, stem and stripe rusts; leaf blights;early blights; late blights; fire blight; leaf spots; powdery mildew;bacterial canker; early rot; Alternaria leaf blight; Alternaria leafspot; Fabrea leaf spot; bacterial wilt; Pierce's disease; Karnal bunt;citrus greening; potato wart; Agrobacterium tumefaciens; clavibactermichiganensis; Pseudomonas syrinhea; fusarium; phytophthora infestans;Alternaria solani; Erwinia amylovora; Botrytis cinerea; Xanthomonasvesicatoria; and the like. A more comprehensive listing of specificpathogens and the crops they attack are set forth in Tate—US2005/0079227A1, the contents of which are hereby incorporated herein byreference.

These compositions may be applied in any conventional manner, spraying,dusting, spreading, etc., as also noted above. Typically any givenformulation will be applied in the manner consistent for the targetedcrop and microorganism. Furthermore, it is also contemplated that anyconventional bioactive agent or other agrichemical additive, if any, tobe used may be applied individually, concurrently or sequentially(essentially as a two-part system), within a few hours of each other,preferably within an hour or two of each other, particularly where thereis concern that the conventional bioactive agent or other agrichemicaladditive may interfere with the performance of the bioactive acidsolution or composition of the present invention, e.g., adverselysequester or bind the antimicrobial metal ions. Typically though,especially for convenience and cost savings, the inventive agrichemicalcompositions of the present invention will be applied as a singlecomposition.

Unlike disinfectants where bioefficacy is measured in terms of log kill,particularly within specified time period, the bioefficacy of thebioactive agrichemical compositions of the present invention is more sorepresented or evidenced by an increase in yields or reduction in lossof the crop. Even a 10% improvement in yield can have a significanteconomic impact. In essence, even a seemingly minor reduction in thetarget organism or a modest inhibition in the growth or proliferation ofthe target organism can manifest an acceptable bioefficacy. Furthermore,the duration of this effect need not be long-lived, for example,efficacy over a couple of days or so may be sufficient. Generally, andpreferably, it is desirable to see a significant reduction, 25% or more,preferably 50% or more, in the growth or proliferation of the targetorganism over two or more, preferably four or more days. Morepreferably, it is desirable to see a 85% or more, most preferably a 95%or more, reduction in the growth or proliferation of the target organismover two or more, most preferably four or more days. Again, though, froma commercial perspective, the desired outcome is an increase, at least a10% increase, preferably at least a 30% increase, most preferably a 65%increase, in yield as compared to the untreated crop.

The following examples are presented as demonstrating the bioefficacy ofthe bioactive agrichemical compositions according to the presentinvention as well as the unexpected synergy resulting from the use ofthe bioactive acid solutions or bioactive acid compositions incombination with conventional bioactive agrichemical actives andformulated actives—the latter being the subject matter of theaforementioned International and United States co-pending and co-filedpatent applications. These examples are merely illustrative of theinvention and are not to be deemed limiting thereof. Those skilled inthe art will recognize many variations that are within the spirit of theinvention and scope of the claims.

Saccharomycetes Cerevisiae Studies

A series of experiments (Examples 1-269 below) were conducted toevaluate the performance of the individual components of the claimedbioactive compositions as well as various combinations thereof,including, the claimed compositions themselves, in suppressing thegrowth of Saccharomycetes Cerevisiae (Fleishmann's Bakers yeast).Saccharomycetes Cerevisiae was selected as a test organism as it isgenerally accepted in the industry as an indicator or surrogate organismfor a wide variety of fungi. In each of these experiments, the samegeneral procedure was followed unless otherwise indicated.

Experimental Detail: A growth medium was prepared by adding 10 grams ofnutrient medium (Difco Sabouraud dextrose broth from BD of FranklinLakes, N.J., USA) to 300 ml of distilled water. Fleishmann's Bakersyeast was then added to the growth medium while mixing using a magneticstirrer until a uniform dispersion was obtained having an initialturbidity of between about 50 and 100 NTU as measured using a HFInstruments DRT 100B Turbidity Meter. Once the appropriate dispersionwas obtained, 20 ml aliquots were then dispensed, with continued mixing,into 40 ml borosilicate glass vials with Teflon lined caps (VWRInternational Cat. No. 15900-004). The system/component to be evaluatedwas then added to the vial and intimately shaken to ensure a good,substantially homogeneous mixture. The turbidity of each mixture wasthen determined and the vial transferred to an incubator at 30° C. Eachvial was periodically removed from the incubator and the mixture in thevials assessed for turbidity: the specific timing for such evaluationwas as set forth in the discussion of the experiments and theaccompanying tables.

In each experiment, unless otherwise specified, a 2 ml aqueous solutioncontaining the specified bioactive system or component thereof was addedto the 20 ml yeast suspension and mixed thoroughly. Typically thesurfactants were added separately in a concentrated solution in water;however, the volume added was negligible: a fraction of an ml. Forconvenience in understanding efficacy levels, the amounts orconcentrations of the various components presented in each of thefollowing tables and experiments are of the diluted material in the testvial: not of the concentrate added to the test vial. Furthermore, theconcentrations presented are on the basis of a 20 ml total volume, notthe actual 22+ ml volume. Multiplying each of the listed concentrationsby 0.9 (or 0.95 with those compositions using 1 ml aqueous solutions)will provide a more accurate assessment of the concentrations of thevarious components evaluated, i.e., a 5 ppm silver concentration isactually closer to 4.5 ppm. Finally, for those vials to which nobioactive system or component thereof was added (the controls) or whichonly contained the surfactants, 2 ml of additional growth medium wasadded to ensure relative equivalent dilutions of the yeast.

In the tables below, the results are presented as the actual turbidityreadings (NTU) with a sub-table presenting the change or delta in NTUvalues. Given the nature of the system, changes in turbidity arereflective of the relative performance/bioefficacy of the bioactivesystems and their components. In certain instances, a high level ofbioactive material, especially the metal component, caused an immediateand relatively sharp increase in optical density or turbidity. This wasbelieved to have been a result of lysing of at least a portion on theyeast cells themselves. Consequently, especially in those exampleshaving a high level of bioactive, it is equally, if not more, importantto look at the change in turbidity from either the half hour or one hourturbidity results, if presented, forward, not from time zero.

EXAMPLES 1-21 Acid Concentration

A first series of experiments was conducted for evaluating theperformance of various antimicrobial metals and combinations of suchmetals, with and without citric acid and with and without sodium lauroylsarcosinate anionic surfactant. Each of the metals was added in the formof an aqueous solution of their citrate salts, namely, silver citrate,copper citrate and zinc citrate,

TABLE 1 Metal Ion Citric and Acid Na Lauroyl Turbidity (NTU) Amount (wtSarcosinate Time Time T 18 T 24 T 96 Example (ppm) %) (wt %) zero 1 Hrhours hours Hours 1 Ag 5 ppm 0 44.5 59.6 890 932 995 2 Ag 5 ppm 1 47.564 882 902 1044 3 Ag 5 ppm 2 50.9 68.4 881 950 1025 4 Ag 5 ppm 0 0.00546.8 51.5 596 677 673 5 Ag 5 ppm 1 0.005 59.4 68.4 85 130 854 6 Ag 5 ppm2 0.005 70.9 75 85 120 880 7 Zn 5 ppm 0 43.8 64.5 992 993 1051 8 Zn 5ppm 1 46.6 66.5 934 962 1027 9 Zn 5 ppm 2 49.5 71 936 1038 1063 10 Zn 5ppm 0 0.005 45.9 63 656 747 712 11 Zn 5 ppm 1 0.005 57 71 160 223 744 12Zn 5 ppm 2 0.005 73 76.5 105 119 466 13 Cu 5 ppm 0 45.6 68 940 1021 110014 Cu 5 ppm 1 49 72 940 1018 1102 15 Cu 5 ppm 2 49 74 900 973 1100 16MI1 0 0.005 39 44.5 449 575 658 17 MI1 1 0.005 73.9 87 100 105 732 18MI1 2 0.005 132 137 137 137 690 19 MI1 1 0.01 74.5 74.8 87 89 116 20Control 53.2 69.4 1031 1085 1122 (No Biocide) 21 Control 53.2 78 11011093 1128 (No Biocide) * MI1 a 4% citric acid solution containing of 50ppm each of Ag, Cu and Zn per ml giving ~5 ppm of each in the test vial

TABLE 1A Metal Ion Citric Change in Turbidity from T₀ and Acid NaLauroyl (delta NTU) Amount (wt Sarcosinate Time T 18 T 24 Example (ppm)%) (wt %) 1 Hr hours hours T 96 Hours 1 Ag 5 ppm 0 15.1 845.5 887.5950.5 2 Ag 5 ppm 1 16.5 834.5 854.5 996.5 3 Ag 5 ppm 2 17.5 830.1 899.1974.1 4 Ag 5 ppm 0 0.005 4.7 549.2 630.2 626.2 5 Ag 5 ppm 1 0.005 9 25.670.6 794.6 6 Ag 5 ppm 2 0.005 4.1 14.1 49.1 809.1 7 Zn 5 ppm 0 20.7948.2 949.2 1007.2 8 Zn 5 ppm 1 19.9 887.4 915.4 980.4 9 Zn 5 ppm 2 21.5886.5 988.5 1013.5 10 Zn 5 ppm 0 0.005 17.1 610.1 701.1 666.1 11 Zn 5ppm 1 0.005 14 103 166 687 12 Zn 5 ppm 2 0.005 3.5 32 46 393 13 Cu 5 ppm0 22.4 894.4 975.4 1054.4 14 Cu 5 ppm 1 23 891 969 1053 15 Cu 5 ppm 2 25851 924 1051 16 MI1 0 0.005 5.5 410 536 619 17 MI1 1 0.005 13.1 26.131.1 658.1 18 MI1 2 0.005 5 5 5 558 19 MI1 1 0.01 0.3 12.5 14.5 41.5 20Control 16.2 977.8 1031.8 1068.8 (No Biocide) 21 Control 24.8 1047.81039.8 1074.8 (No Biocide) * MI1 a 4% citric acid solution containing of50 ppm each of Ag, Cu and Zn per ml giving ~5 ppm of each in the testvialor, in the case of Examples 16-19, as a mixture of all three citratesalts (MI1). The specific formulations evaluated and the resultant yeastgrowth study results are shown in Tables 1 and 1A.

As seen in Tables 1 and 1A, those formulations having both the acid andthe anionic surfactant provided marked yeast growth inhibition throughat least the first 24 hour period, even with the low lever of anionicsurfactant. Those samples with just the metal ion or the metal ion incombination with the acid had no appreciable effect on yeast growth.Although some inhibition was also noted in those samples wherein onlythe metal(s) and surfactant were present, the inhibition was notappreciable. Rather, as noted, the further presence of excess acid gavea marked and unexpected level of improvement. Finally, that formulationhaving all three antimicrobial metal ions, plus the acid and surfactantprovided continued to show excellent yeast growth inhibition even at the96 hour test limit.

EXAMPLES 22-42 Surfactant Evaluation

A similar series of experiments was conducted again to evaluate theperformance of various combinations of the components of the bioactivecompositions of the present invention as well as to demonstrate otheranionic surfactants and combinations of surfactants. The specificformulations evaluated and the yeast growth results are presented inTables 2 and 2A.

Once again, the importance of all three constituents was evident fromthe results shown in Tables 2 and 2A. These results further confirm thateven a low excess acid content, here 0.4%, provides excellent inhibitionin yeast growth through 96 hours. The somewhat less than ideal resultsshown in Examples 26 and 29 suggest some variation amongst anionicsurfactants, at least with sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), with zinc andcopper ions. However, the results are still significantly better thanwithout a surfactant at all and suggest a possible synergy with two.Furthermore, because of the easier solubility of the SLS, as compared tothe sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (NaLS), the presence of the SLS helpsimprove and/or enhance the solubility of the NaLS under acid conditions.

EXAMPLES 43-57 Low Concentration Evaluation

A series of experiments were conducted again to evaluate the performanceof various combinations of the components of the bioactive compositionsof the present invention, this time focusing on the impact of the lowconcentrations of the components and their combinations. In this set ofexperiments, 1 ml aqueous solutions of the bioactive/citric acidcomponents were added to the 20 ml vials. The specific formulationsevaluated and the yeast growth results are presented in Tables 3 and 3A.

As seen in Tables 3 and 3A, once again the combination of bioactivemetal ions, citric acid and anionic surfactant demonstrated a markedinhibition in yeast growth as compared to the individual components,even at the low concentrations of excess acid and surfactant. Though,once again, the

TABLE 2 Turbidity (NTU) Example Metal citrates (ppm) in .4% citric acidSurfactant* (wt %) Time zero T I hour T 18 hours T 24 hours T 96 Hrs 22Copper 5 ppm 103 114 410 463 588 23 Zinc 5 ppm 103 118 475 488 589 24Silver 5 ppm 155 168 181 190 670 25 Copper 5 ppm .005 NaLS 145 146 157160 149 26 Copper 5 ppm .005 SLS 119 128 252 326 502 27 Copper 5 ppm.005 NaLS:.005 SLS 145 144 156 154 157 28 Zinc 5 ppm .005 NaLS 148 156157 157 157 29 Zinc 5 ppm .005 SLS 126 134 217 234 539 30 Zinc 5 ppm.005 NaLS:.005 SLS 155 155 157 157 158 31 Silver 5 ppm .005 NaLS 170 170184 184 180 32 Silver 5 ppm .005 SLS 177 177 193 196 196 33 Silver 5 ppm.005 NaLS:.005 SLS 193 190 198 199 199 34 Copper 2.5 ppm:Zinc 2.5 ppm 99109 498 510 614 35 Copper 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm 128 152 424 530 727 36Zinc 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm 128 151 541 621 720 37 Control I (nobiocide) 91 114 560 580 754 38 Control 2 (no biocide) 91 114 563 584 72639 Copper 2.5 ppm:Zinc 2.5 ppm .005 NaLS:.005 SLS 192 180 193 193 193 40Copper 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm .005 NaLS:.005 SLS 181 204 205 206 206 41Zinc 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm .005 NaLS:.005 SLS 194 193 212 212 212 42Copper 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm:Zinc 2.5 .005 NaLS:.005 SLS 193 193 199200 205 ppm *NaLS—sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, SLS—sodium lauryl sulfate

TABLE 2A Change in Turbidity from T0 (delta NTU) Example Metal citrates(ppm) in .4% citric acid Surfactant* (wt %) T I hour T 18 hours T 24hours T 96 Hrs 22 Copper 5 ppm 11 307 360 485 23 Zinc 5 ppm 15 372 385486 24 Silver 5 ppm 13 26 35 515 25 Copper 5 ppm .005 NaLS 1 12 15 4 26Copper 5 ppm .005 SLS 9 133 207 383 27 Copper 5 ppm .005 NaLS:.005 SLS−1 11 9 12 28 Zinc 5 ppm .005 NaLS 8 9 9 9 29 Zinc 5 ppm .005 SLS 8 91108 413 30 Zinc 5 ppm .005 NaLS:.005 SLS 0 2 2 3 31 Silver 5 ppm .005NaLS 0 14 14 10 32 Silver 5 ppm .005 SLS 0 16 19 19 33 Silver 5 ppm .005NaLS:.005 SLS −3 5 6 6 34 Copper 2.5 ppm:Zinc 2.5 ppm 10 399 411 515 35Copper 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm 24 296 402 599 36 Zinc 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5ppm 23 413 493 592 37 Control I (no biocide) 23 469 489 663 38 Control 2(no biocide) 23 472 493 635 39 Copper 2.5 ppm:Zinc 2.5 ppm .005NaLS:.005 SLS −12 1 1 1 40 Copper 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm .005 NaLS:.005SLS 23 24 25 25 41 Zinc 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm .005 NaLS:.005 SLS −1 1818 18 42 Copper 2.5 ppm:Silver 2.5 ppm:Zinc 2.5 ppm .005 NaLS:.005 SLS 06 7 12

TABLE 3 Turbidity (NTU) Example Bioactive Metal* Citric Acid (wt %)Surfactant** (wt %) OD(To) OD (T1 hr) OD (T18) OD (T24) OD (T48) 43 0.01NaLS 43 45 550 613 521 44 0.02 NaLS 43 40 460 524 624 45 0.01 SLS 43 47675 728 758 46 0.02 SLS 37 42 495 610 605 47 0.01 NaLS/0.01 SLS 40 41370 466 580 48 0.005 NaLS/0.005 SLS 43 47 630 696 726 49 0.05 42 46 835920 878 50 0.1 38 44 780 864 852 51 MI1 0.2 50 62 809 891 915 52 MI1 0.20.01 NaLS 64 63 67 68 69 53 MI1 0.2 0.01 SLS 61 65 300 569 1039 54 MI10.2 0.005 NaLS/0.005 SLS 60 63 62 63 73 55 MI1 0.2 0.01 NaLS/0.01 SLS 8576 76 79 79 56 Control 1 43 51 960 997 939 57 Control 2 43 51 890 986887 *MI1 a 4% citric acid solution containing of 50 ppm each of Ag, Cuand Zn per ml giving (@ 1 ml) ~5 ppm of each in the test vial**NaLS—sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, SLS—sodium lauryl sulfate

TABLE 3A Change in Turbidity from T0 (delta NTU) Example BioactiveMetal* Citric Acid (wt %) Surfactant** (wt %) OD (T1 hr) OD (T18) OD(T24) OD (T48) 43 0.01 NaLS 2 507 570 478 44 0.02 NaLS −3 417 481 581 450.01 SLS 4 632 685 715 46 0.02 SLS 5 458 573 568 47 0.01 NaLS/0.01 SLS 1330 426 540 48 0.005 NaLS/0.005 SLS 4 587 653 683 49 0.05 4 793 878 83650 0.1 6 742 826 814 51 MI1 0.2 12 759 841 865 52 MI1 0.2 0.01 NaLS −1 34 5 53 MI1 0.2 0.01 SLS 4 239 508 978 54 MI1 0.2 0.005 NaLS/0.005 SLS 32 3 13 55 MI1 0.2 0.01 NaLS/0.01 SLS −9 −9 −6 −6 56 Control 1 8 917 954896 57 Control 2 8 847 943 844 *MI1 a 4% citric acid solution containingof 50 ppm each of Ag, Cu and Zn per ml giving (@ 1 ml) ~5 ppm of each inthe test vial **NaLS—sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, SLS—sodium laurylsulfatesurfactants appeared to have a marginal inhibitory effect, as comparedto the controls, on their own, the inhibition was negligible as comparedto that of the systems according to the present invention.

EXAMPLES 58-71 Ion-Exchange Metal Ion Source

A metal citrate solution was prepared by adding approximately 4 grams ofcitric acid to about 8 grams of water and mixed until fully dissolved.Thereafter, 0.1 grams each of two ion-exchange type antimicrobialagents, AgION AC10D and AgION AK10D antimicrobial agents from AgIONTechnologies of Wakefield, Mass., USA, were added to the concentratedcitric acid solution with agitation until the antimicrobial agents fullydissolved. Approximately 92 grams of water was then added to provide a4% citric acid solution having dissolved therein 0.1 wt % AC10D and 0.1wt % AK10D. AgION AK10D contains about 5.0% by weight silver and about13% by weight zinc and AgION AC10D contains about 6.0% by weight copperand about 3.5% by weight silver. Various quantities of the so formedcitric acid solution were then added to test vials so as to provide asilver content in the test vials of approximately 1.25 ppm, 2.5 ppm, 5.0ppm and 10 ppm. Additionally, different surfactant and surfactantcombinations were added to certain vials to demonstrate the effect ofdifferent metal and acid contents on bioefficacy with and withoutsurfactants. The specific formulations evaluated and the yeast growthresults are presented in Tables 4 and 4A.

As seen in Tables 4 and 4A, the compositions according to the presentinvention provided marked inhibition in yeast growth. Although Example61 containing the higher concentration of metal ions (10 ppm silver, 7ppm copper and 15.3 ppm zinc), showed good yeast growth inhibition, thehigher degree of efficacy comes with the concomitant increase in therelease of these metals into the environment. This becomes especiallyimportant where the bioactive materials are to be used in or near marineand/or agricultural applications. Thus, while high metal concentrations,especially of silver, will provide better bioefficacy, they also hastenthe impact on aquatic environments. On the other hand, as shown in thoseexamples employing the antimicrobial metal containing acid solutionswith the anionic surfactant, especially sodium lauroyl sarcosinate,alone

TABLE 4 Ag Turbidity (NTU) Concentration OD Example ppm Surfactant* (wt%) OD (T zero) OD (T1 hr) OD (T18 hr) OD (T24 hr) OD (T44 hr) (T120 hr)58 1.25 108 128 913 880 954 1136 59 2.5 127 157 865 890 941 1024 60 5176 199 229 227 234 721 61 10 168 173 191 191 190 180 62 1.25 0.005 NaLS143 158 240 560 843 708 63 2.5 0.005 NaLS 180 179 204 210 729 843 64 50.005 NaLS 194 201 222 221 227 227 65 1.25 0.005 SLS 136 167 953 930 9731132 66 2.5 0.005 SLS 201 212 880 880 967 1145 67 5 0.005 SLS 248 247272 272 296 297 68 1.25 .0025 NaLS/.0025 SLS 166 180 343 730 957 986 692.5 .0025 NaLS/.0025 SLS 215 217 235 239 759 940 70 5 .0025 NaLS/.0025SLS 235 235 257 255 259 268 71 Control 101 125 1050 1050 1040 1183*NaLS—sodium lauroyl sarcosinate,SLS—sodium lauryl sulfate

TABLE 4A Change in Turbidity (delta NTU) Example Ag Concentration ppmSurfactant* (wt %) OD (T1 hr) OD (T18 hr) OD (T24 hr) OD (T44 hr) OD(T120 hr) 58 1.25 20 805 772 846 1028 59 2.5 30 738 763 814 897 60 5 2353 51 58 545 61 10 5 23 23 22 12 62 1.25 0.005 NaLS 15 97 417 700 565 632.5 0.005 NaLS −1 24 30 549 663 64 5 0.005 NaLS 7 28 27 33 33 65 1.250.005 SLS 31 817 794 837 996 66 2.5 0.005 SLS 11 679 679 766 944 67 50.005 SLS −1 24 24 48 49 68 1.25 .0025 NaLS/.0025 SLS 14 177 564 791 82069 2.5 .0025 NaLS/.0025 SLS 2 20 24 544 725 70 5 .0025 NaLS/.0025 SLS 022 20 24 33 71 Control 24 949 949 939 1082 *NaLS—sodium lauroylsarcosinate, SLS—sodium lauryl sulfateor in combination with sodium lauryl sulfate, the same and even betteryeast inhibition is realized with less than half, even less thanone-quarter, the metal ion concentrations. Furthermore, these resultsshow that by adjusting the level of surfactant, one may reduce the levelof metal ion even more while still providing marked inhibition of thefungi.

Also surprising about this example is the finding that citric acid coulddissolve the antimicrobial zeolite particles. This finding presentsanother means by which the inventive compositions may be made as well asa number of alternative applications for such materials not otherwisepossible with the zeolites in their solid form.

EXAMPLES 72-79 Metal Concentration

For this study a concentrated bioactive system (MI2) was preparedcomprising a 16% aqueous citric acid solution having dissolved thereinsilver citrate, copper citrate and zinc citrate, each added in an amountto provide 200 ppm of each metal, together with 0.25% sodium Lauroylsarcosinate and 0.32% sodium lauryl sulfate. Various amounts of thissystem were added to the test vials to further assess the impact ofmetal concentration yeast inhibition. A further example was preparedfurther including a non-ionic surfactant, Tween 20 (polyoxyethylene (20)sorbitan monolaurate), an emulsifier to assess its impact onperformance. The specific formulations evaluated and the results arepresented in Tables 5 and 5A.

As seen in Tables 5 and 5A, the high concentrations of metalsdramatically inhibited, if not stopped altogether, yeast growth. Thesolutions of Examples 76, 77 and 78 containing ultra-high metal contentappeared to destroy the yeast cells, showing what appeared to be a rapiddenaturation of the yeast on addition of the bioactive material to thetext vials. It is likely that the initial high turbidity reflected boththat arising from the addition of the bioactive materials themselves aswell as the destruction of the yeast cells.

Regardless, the results show that marked inhibition is also attained atmuch lower concentrations of the metal in the presence of the excessacid and surfactant. Indeed, just 15 ppm metals (5 ppm of each) provideexcellent inhibition through 82 hours and beyond.

TABLE 5 Concen- MI2* tration of added each metal Turbidity (NTU) Example(ml) (ppm) T0 T18 T22 T24 T64 T82 72 0 0 63 920 980 964 1020 1050 73 0.11 81 608 722 820 1077 1062 74 0.25 2.5 111 126 142 160 752 810 75 0.5 5145 198 208 208 205 203 76 1.0 10 483 410 395 369 320 300 77 2.0 20 1295820 714 660 399 264 78 3.0 30 1435 766 620 555 340 340 79 0.5⁺ 5 141 249405 600 1116 1129 *MI2 a 16% citric acid solution containing of 200 ppmeach of Ag, Cu and Zn per ml ⁺this formulation also contained 0.1 wt %Tween 20 a non-ionic surfactant

TABLE 5A Concentration MI2* of added each metal Change in Turbidity(delta NTU) Example (ml) (ppm) T18 − T 0 T22 − T0 T24 − T0 T64 − T0 T82− T0 72 0 0 857 917 901 957 987 73 0.1 1 527 641 739 996 981 74 0.25 2.515 31 49 641 699 75 0.5 5 53 63 63 60 58 76 1.0 10 −73 −88 −114 −163−183 77 2.0 20 −475 −581 −635 −896 −1031 78 3.0 30 −669 −815 −880 −1095−1095 79 0.5⁺ 5 108 264 459 975 988 *MI2 a 16% citric acid solutioncontaining of 200 ppm each of Ag, Cu and Zn per ml ⁺this formulationalso contained 0.1 wt % Tween 20 a non-ionic surfactant

Finally, the addition of Tween 20 surfactant appeared to be antagonisticto the action of the bioactive systems of the present inventionresulting in a reduction in the level of yeast inhibition. Still, thiscomposition (Example 79) manifested moderate yeast inhibition through 24hours. Depending upon the specific end-use application contemplated, itis evident that routine preliminary evaluations should be conductedbefore formulating with various additives to ascertain their impact onthe inventive systems of the present invention.

EXAMPLES 80-95 Bioactives Synergy

A series of experiments were conducted in which possible synergies wereevaluated between the inventive compositions and other bioactivematerials as well as between such other bioactive materials including afungicide, an antimicrobial agent and a disinfectant. The inventivebioactive system employed in this set of experiments (MI3) was a 4%aqueous citric acid solution containing 50 ppm silver, 50 ppm copper and50 ppm zinc.

The fungicide evaluated was Mancozeb Flowable with Zinc from BonideProducts, Inc. of Oniskany, N.Y., USA, a commercial formulated fungicidecontaining 37% by wt mancozeb. Although the specific formulation of theMancozeb product is proprietary, as a commercial formulation it wouldalso contain certain surfactants for enabling its application to plantsfor efficacy. Mancozeb is an insoluble, dispersible powder thatincreases the turbidity of the liquids to which it is added.Nevertheless, in a separate evaluation, not reproduced here, it wasfound that Mancozeb was able to control or inhibit yeast growth at aconcentration of about 1.23×10⁻³. The label indicates its use rate at2.6×10⁻³.

The antimicrobial active evaluated was AgION AC10D, an antimicrobialzeolite additive available from AgION Technologies, Inc., of Wakefield,Mass., USA, which, as noted above, contains 6.0 wt % copper and 3.5 wt %silver. In a separate dilution evaluation, not reproduced here, it wasfound that an aqueous suspension of AC10D showed some yeast control orinhibition at a concentration of about 6.25×10⁴.

Finally, the disinfectant evaluated was AgION SilverClene 24, adisinfectant material based on an aqueous solution of electrolyticallygenerated silver citrate (˜30 ppm silver), also distributed by AgIONTechnologies, Inc. Although proprietary, this product and itsmanufacture is believed to be disclosed in Arata—U.S. Pat. No.6,583,176, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.

The aforementioned materials as well as various combinations thereofwere evaluated to assess their efficacy in stopping or inhibiting thegrowth of yeast. The specific formulations tested and the yeastinhibition results attained therewith are presented in Tables 6 and 6A.

TABLE 6 AgION Turbidity (NTU) Amt MI3 Mancozeb AC10D SilverClene 24 OD TT T T Example (ml) (wt %) (wt %) (ml) Surfactant (wt %) zero (1 hour)(18 hour) (24 Hour) pH 80 9.40E−05 262 293 1023 1030 3.07 81 1 9.40E−05276 276 309 522 2.91 82 2 9.40E−05 301 301 308 312 2.55 83 2 1.88E−040.05 NaLS/0.05 SLS 350 362 362 362 84 2 3.75E−04 656 640 1001 1170 2.485 1 9.40E−05 0.05 SLS 331 321 328 330 2.48 86 to pH 6 3.75E−04 0.05NaLS/0.05 SLS 609 605 825 968 4.91 87 1.88E−04 7.81E−05 0.05 NaLS 410385 443 511 88 2 1.88E−04 7.81E−05 0.05 NaLS/0.05 SLS 521 435 435 4402.68 89 9.40E−05 1 258 276 970 962 2.67 90 1.88E−04 2 365 364 782 104891 3.90E−05 128 151 862 800 3.23 92 2 3.90E−05 0.05 SLS 154 156 172 1752.54 93 2 1.56E−04 0.05 NaLS/0.05 SLS 190 143 148 156 2.66 94 2 0.05NaLS/0.05 SLS 157 67 189 195 2.51 95 Control 73 98 898 856 3.25

TABLE 6A Amt Mancozeb AgION SilverClene 24 Change in Turbidity (deltaNTU) Example MI3 (ml) (wt %) AC10D (wt %) (ml) Surfactant (wt %) 1 hour18 hour 1 − 18 hour 24 hour 1 − 24 hour 80 9.40E−05 31 761 730 768 73781 1 9.40E−05 0 33 33 246 246 82 2 9.40E−05 0 7 7 11 11 83 2 1.88E−040.05 NaLS/0.05 SLS 12 12 0 12 0 84 2 3.75E−04 −16 345 361 514 530 85 19.40E−05 0.05 SLS −10 −3 7 −1 9 86 to pH 6 3.75E−04 0.05 NaLS/0.05 SLS−4 216 220 359 363 87 1.88E−04 7.81E−05 0.05 NaLS −25 33 58 101 126 88 21.88E−04 7.81E−05 0.05 NaLS/0.05 SLS −86 −86 0 −81 5 89 9.40E−05 1 18712 694 704 686 90 1.88E−04 2 −1 417 416 683 682 91 3.90E−05 23 734 711672 649 92 2 3.90E−05 0.05 SLS 2 18 16 21 19 93 2 1.56E−04 0.05NaLS/0.05 SLS −47 −42 5 −34 13 94 2 0.05 NaLS/0.05 SLS −90 32 122 38 12895 Control 25 825 800 783 758

The results presented in Tables 6 and 6A demonstrate a marked synergybetween the inventive compositions according the present invention andcommercial fungicides and antimicrobial agents. Specifically, forexample, a comparison of the results for Examples 80, 81 and 82demonstrate that combining low amounts of the metal ions, citric acidand fungicide provided excellent antifungal performance. While it isnoted that these formulations did not have additional surfactant, thecommercial fungicide itself contained surfactants that worked incombination with the metal ions and citric acid to provide the benefitsowing to that combination as now claimed. These results show thatexcellent antifungal activity, as measured by yeast growth inhibition,may be attained with less than 10% of the amount of fungicide needed toinhibit yeast growth by the simple addition of low levels of acid andmetal ions. As seen from Examples 91, 92 and 93, a similar synergy isshown for the inventive compositions in combination with a conventionalinorganic antimicrobial agent. Here too, less than 10% of that amount ofthe antimicrobial agent needed when used alone, provided goodantimicrobial performance when in combination with low levels ofbioactive composition according to the present invention. However, thesubstitution of the SilverClene 24 for the inventive composition of thepresent invention, Examples 89 and 90, provided no apparent benefitdespite the relatively high silver content.

Finally, in Example 86, ammonia was added to a portion of the MI3solution until the solution reached a pH of 6. 2 ml of this bufferedsolution was then employed in the experiment. This example indicates theimportance of the low pH of the compositions according to the presentinvention in order to provide desirable performance.

EXAMPLES 96-107 Immunox Synergy

A similar study was conducted to assess the synergy between thebioactive compositions according to the present invention and a secondfungicide, Immunox, a commercial fungicide containing 1.55%myclobutanil, available from Spectrum Brands Division of UnitedIndustries of Madison, Wis., USA. As a commercial formulation, this toois expected to have some surfactants content. The bioactive compositionemployed in this experiment was the concentrated bioactive system (MI2)produced in Examples 72-79 above. The specific dilutions of each and theresults attained thereby are presented in Table 7.

TABLE 7 Dilution Ratio T1.5 Delta Example Immunox MI2 T zero OD T18 T68OD 68 96 1:80 150 152 832 682 97 1:200 106 112 980 874 98 1:64 97 1071043 99 1:128 111 119 1126 100 1:256 84 131 1170 1086 101 1:512 81 1401240 1159 102 1:256 1:80 138 141 268 130 103 1:256 1:200 102 114 1037935 104 1:512 1:80 138 140 292 154 105 1:512 1:200 97 110 1031 934 106Control 1 86 175 754 668 107 Control 2 87 176 1180 1093

As indicated in Table 7, none of the test vials containing the lowlevels of each of the bioactive compositions or the Immunox dilutionprovided antifungal activity through the full 96 hour period tested.Furthermore, neither the 1:128 dilution (Example 99) nor the 1:64dilution (Example 98) of Immunox provided any measure of efficacy, evenin the shorter test period of 18 hours, despite the fact that themanufacturer generally recommends a dilution of 1:64. Similarly,Examples 103 and 105 having a 1:200 dilution of the bioactivecomposition (˜1 ppm of each metal, 0.08% citric acid, 0.00125 NaLS and0.0016 SLS) in combination with the two dilutions of the Immunox failedto demonstrate bioefficacy whereas combinations of both dilutions of theImmunox with a somewhat higher level, 1:80 dilution, of the bioactivecomposition (˜2.5 ppm of each metal, 0.2% citric acid, 0.003 NaLS and0.004 SLS) demonstrated bioefficacy. This demonstrates a synergy betweenthe two compositions as the 1:80 dilution by itself failed to showbioefficacy over the full period tested.

EXAMPLES 108-126 Metal Sources

A series of experiments were conducted using different metal salts asthe metal ion sources. Here, sufficient amounts of silver nitrate,copper sulfate and zinc oxide were added to a 5% aqueous citric acidsolution to provide 31.75 ppm silver, 12.5 ppm copper and 40.17 ppmzinc. Different quantities of this stock concentrate solution (MI4) wereadded to the test vials to assess efficacy. The specific formulations,including the resultant ppm of each metal in the text vial, as well asthe results thereof in inhibiting yeast growth were as presented inTables 8 and 8A.

The results shown in Tables 8 and 8A demonstrate that the selection ofthe metal ion source is not critical so long as it is readily solubleand is soluble to the extent needed to provide the desired level ofmetal ion concentration in the solution. Furthermore, the resultsdemonstrate the bioefficacy even at extremely low metal and acidcontents. Although, the efficacy is relatively short lived at the lowerconcentrations, long-term bioefficacy is found with only minoradjustments in the relative concentration of the necessary components.Furthermore, depending upon the ultimate end-use application, such shortterm antifungal efficacy may be sufficient; thus, enabling one tominimize any environmental contamination from the general application ofthese materials.

The results also suggest that sodium lauryl sulfate may be ineffectiveon its own in promoting the bioefficacy of the bioactive compositions ofthe present invention. Nevertheless, its presence may be desirable wherethe efficacious surfactant is not readily soluble in the aqueous system.On the other hand, its presence or the presence of like surfactants maynot be important where the intent is to produce non-aqueous systems. Forexample, systems to be applied as an emulsion in water or as an oil thatwill spread on an aqueous medium to which it is applied, e.g., a ricepaddy, may look to surfactants that are less hydrophilic and morelipophilic.

EXAMPLES 127-143 Lactic Acid

A series of experiments was conducted similar to the previous with theexception that lactic acid was substituted for citric acid. Hence, thebioactive composition (MI5) comprised sufficient amounts of silvernitrate, copper sulfate and zinc oxide dissolved in a 5% aqueous lacticacid solution to provide 31.75 ppm silver, 12.5 ppm copper and 40.17 ppmzinc. The specific formulations tested and the results attainedtherewith were as presented in Tables 9 and 9A.

TABLE 8 Metals Surfactant Volume Concentration (w/w)% Turbidity (NTU)Example MI4 added ppm Ag ppm Cu ppm Zn NaLS SDS T zero T2 T18 T26 T44T48 T68 108 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 81 129 950 1046 1046 1046 1054 109 1 1.590.63 2.01 85 136 950 997 1055 990 1023 110 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 112 158 916930 960 930 970 111 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 126 158 760 799 810 830 844 112 0.50.79 0.31 1.00 0.005 140 143 179 307 919 936 980 113 1 1.59 0.63 2.010.005 140 137 143 152 279 306 468 114 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 0.005 180 174 174177 244 252 282 115 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.005 187 185 184 184 184 184 272116 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.005 83 132 948 1054 1066 1078 1097 117 1 1.590.63 2.01 0.005 97 136 911 1003 1100 1060 1075 118 2 3.18 1.25 4.020.005 116 147 746 907 970 1001 1006 119 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.005 124 156504 701 840 868 916 120 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.0025 0.0025 140 140 250 6401065 1088 1133 121 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 0.0025 0.0025 149 149 160 256 930901 1014 122 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 0.0025 0.0025 164 177 174 174 291 459 804123 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.0025 0.0025 176 179 177 181 320 445 736 124 23.18 1.25 4.02 0.01 162 162 162 163 163 164 164 125 0.86 1.37 0.54 1.730.01 150 140 140 140 186 208 254 126 78 113 877 866 878 865 898

TABLE 8A Volume Surfactant Change in Turbidity (delta NTU) MI4 MetalsConcentration (w/w)% Delta D D D D D Example added ppm Ag ppm Cu ppm ZnNaLS SDS T2 − T0 T18 − T0 T26 − T0 T44 − T0 T48 − T0 T68 − T0 108 0.50.79 0.31 1.00 48 869 965 965 965 973 109 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 51 865 912970 905 938 110 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 48 804 818 848 818 858 111 3 4.76 1.886.03 32 624 673 684 704 718 112 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.005 3 39 167 779796 840 113 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 0.005 −3 3 12 139 166 328 114 2 3.18 1.254.02 0.005 −8 −6 −3 64 72 102 115 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.005 −2 −3 −3 −3 −385 116 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.005 49 865 971 983 995 1014 117 1 1.59 0.632.01 0.005 39 814 906 1003 963 978 118 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 0.005 31 630 791854 885 890 119 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.005 32 380 577 716 744 792 120 0.50.79 0.31 1.00 0.0025 0.0025 0 110 500 925 948 993 121 1 1.59 0.63 2.010.0025 0.0025 0 11 107 781 752 865 122 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 0.0025 0.0025 1310 10 127 295 640 123 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.0025 0.0025 3 1 5 144 269 560124 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 0.01 0 0 1 1 2 2 125 0.86 1.37 0.54 1.73 0.01 −10−10 −10 36 58 104 126 35 799 788 800 787 820

TABLE 9 Surfactant Volume Metals Concentration (w/w)% Turbidity (NTU)Example MI5 added ppm Ag ppm Cu ppm Zn NaLS SDS T zero T1 T18 T24 T44127 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 107 130 1000 1111 1001 128 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 109130 1006 1021 1016 129 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 148 154 970 995 1014 130 3 4.761.88 6.03 178 202 914 925 990 131 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.005 134 170 300454 923 132 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 0.005 153 169 200 227 292 133 2 3.18 1.254.02 0.005 218 217 207 204 228 134 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.005 222 223 222215 227 135 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.005 120 145 1074 1111 1079 136 1 1.590.63 2.01 0.005 140 156 1050 1092 1110 137 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 0.005 179193 945 1031 1080 138 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.005 223 239 690 977 1180 1390.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.0025 0.0025 143 151 884 968 1170 140 1 1.59 0.632.01 0.0025 0.0025 175 175 237 330 1110 141 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 0.00250.0025 210 214 207 223 730 142 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.0025 0.0025 240 240228 228 475 143 control 100 139 1175 1163 1170

TABLE 9A Surfactant Volume Metals Concentration (w/w)% Change inTurbidity (delta NTU) Example MI5 added ppm Ag ppm Cu ppm Zn NaLS SDS DT1 − T0 D T18 − T10 D T24 − T0 D T44 − T0 127 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 23 8931004 894 128 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 21 897 912 907 129 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 8 822847 866 130 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 24 736 747 812 131 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.00536 166 320 789 132 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 0.005 16 47 74 139 133 2 3.18 1.254.02 0.005 −1 −11 −14 10 134 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.005 1 0 −7 5 135 0.50.79 0.31 1.00 0.005 25 954 991 959 136 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 0.005 16 910952 970 137 2 3.18 1.25 4.02 0.005 14 766 852 901 138 3 4.76 1.88 6.030.005 16 467 754 957 139 0.5 0.79 0.31 1.00 0.0025 0.0025 8 741 825 1027140 1 1.59 0.63 2.01 0.0025 0.0025 0 62 155 935 141 2 3.18 1.25 4.020.0025 0.0025 4 −3 13 520 142 3 4.76 1.88 6.03 0.0025 0.0025 0 −12 −12235 143 control 39 1075 1063 1070

The results as shown in Tables 9 and 9A, mimic those found in theprevious set of experiments indicating that the invention istranslatable to acids of similar characteristics.

EXAMPLES 144-156 Phosphoric Acid

Two stock solutions were prepared for evaluation wherein the acidemployed was phosphoric acid. In the first, silver citrate, coppercitrate and zinc citrate were added to a 16% aqueous phosphoric acidsolution to provide 200 ppm of each metal. A second stock solution wasprepared using silver nitrate, copper sulfate and zinc oxide, again inthe 16% phosphoric acid solution to provide 200 ppm of each metal. Bothcomposition further contained 0.32% surfactant, either as an individualsurfactant or as a 50:50 mix. The specific formulations and the resultsof their efficacy in controlling yeast growth were as presented inTables 10 and 10A.

The results as shown in Tables 10 and 10A suggest that the surfactantmay not be critical in those compositions wherein the excess acid is astrong to moderate acid, such as phosphoric acid.

EXAMPLES 157-166 Nitric Acid

To further demonstrate the breadth of the bioactive compositions, arelatively strong mineral acid, nitric acid, was employed as the acidcomponent. A stock solution was prepared by combining 78.7 mg slivernitrate, 62.2 mg zinc oxide and 200 mg copper sulfate with 20 ml ofpurified water and 1.5 g concentrated nitric acid (68%) under constantagitation. Once the solids were dissolved, additional purified water wasadded to make up a 250 volume. As prepared, this mixture containedapproximately 200 ppm of each metal, as calculated. The pH was measuredand found to be 1.66. The mixture was then divided into three aliquotsof approximately equal volume. One aliquot was set aside and the othertwo were subjected to pH adjustment with ammonia hydroxide. The amountof ammonia hydroxide was added was that necessary to bring the pH of thefirst aliquot up to 2.55 and the second aliquot up to 3.63.

Each solution was then evaluated, with and without surfactants, toassess their bioefficacy in inhibiting the growth of yeast. The amountof each of the three aliquots added to the 20 ml vial of the yeastsuspension is set forth in

TABLE 10 Turbidity (NTU Example Metal source Metal (ppm) Surfactants(w/w) T zero T1 hour T18 T24 T42 T48 T72 T96 144 Citrate salts* 2.5 123134 300 400 1046 1094 1146 1106 145 Citrate salts* 5 199 180 166 166 160163 162 154 146 Citrate salts* 10 211 193 176 176 172 177 172 169 147AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 2.5 168 166 179 179 172 174 778 1162 148 AgNO3, CuSO4,ZnO 5 209 193 180 180 175 174 170 168 149 AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 10 228 219197 197 196 204 199 194 150 Citrate salts* 5 0.05 SLS 226 218 200 200193 203 192 186 151 Citrate salts* 5 0.05 NaLS 258 254 216 216 200 205197 185 152 Citrate salts* 5 0.05 SLS/0.05 NaLS 253 237 200 200 204 208201 188 153 AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 5 0.05 SLS 285 263 229 229 223 229 214 206154 AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 5 0.05 NaLS 280 273 226 222 216 213 208 184 155AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 5 0.05 SLS/0.05 NaLS 283 272 250 247 232 238 232 215156 Control 52 53 437 599 938 913 877 886 *Ag citate, Cu citrate and Zncitrate, each at level designated

TABLE 10A Metal Change in Turbidity (delta NTU) Example Metal source(ppm) Surfactants (w/w) T1 − T0 T18 − T1 T24 − T1 T42 − T1 T48 − T1 T72− T1 T96 − T1 144 Citrate salts* 2.5 11 166 266 912 960 1012 972 145Citrate salts* 5 −19 −14 −14 −20 −17 −18 −26 146 Citrate salts* 10 −18−17 −17 −21 −16 −21 −24 147 AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 2.5 −2 13 13 6 8 612 996148 AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 5 −16 −13 −13 −18 −19 −23 −25 149 AgNO3, CuSO4,ZnO 10 −9 −22 −22 −23 −15 −20 −25 150 Citrate salts* 5 0.05 SLS −8 −18−18 −25 −15 −26 −32 151 Citrate salts* 5 0.05 NaLS −4 −38 −38 −54 −49−57 −69 152 Citrate salts* 5 0.05 SLS/0.05 NaLS −16 −37 −37 −33 −29 −36−49 153 AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 5 0.05 SLS −22 −34 −34 −40 −34 −49 −57 154AgNO3, CuSO4, ZnO 5 0.05 NaLS −7 −47 −51 −57 −60 −65 −89 155 AgNO3,CuSO4, ZnO 5 0.05 SLS/0.05 NaLS −11 −22 −25 −40 −34 −40 −57 156 Control1 384 546 885 860 824 833Table 11 together with the amount of surfactant added, where indicated.The surfactant employed was a 50:50 mix of sodium lauryl sulfate andsodium lauroyl sarcosinate. The specific formulations tested and theresults thereof are presented in Table 11. As can be seen from Table 11,the combination of metal and acid did not provide any inhibition at thelevels tested. However, when the surfactant was added, bioefficacy wasmanifested even at the lower metal/acid concentration.

TABLE 11 Nitric Acid Vol. Metals Surfactant Turbidity/Change inTurbidity Example MI6 Added (ppm) (w/w)% pH T0 T18 T18 − T0 T42 T42 − T0157 0.5 5 1.66 69 1243 1174 1133 1064 158 0.5 5 2.55 67 1245 1178 11331066 159 0.5 5 3.63 69 1243 1174 1150 1081 160 1 10 1.66 65 976 911 11621097 161 1 10 2.55 66 1012 946 1186 1120 162 1 10 3.63 67 1036 969 11661099 163 0.5 5 0.05 1.66 61 55 −6 58 −3 164 0.5 5 0.05 2.55 62 53 −9 55−7 165 0.5 5 0.05 3.63 60 57 −3 52 −8 166 0 67 1255 1188 1212 1145

EXAMPLES 167-222 Surfactant Evaluation

A series of experiments were conducted to screen various surfactants forefficacy in accordance with the present invention. The surfactants wereevaluated as a neat additive (0 ppm metals) or in combination witheither 1 ml or 2 ml of a 4% citric acid solution containing 50 ppm eachof copper, silver and zinc. With the addition of 1 ml of the citric acidsolution, the test vial of the yeast suspension will have about 0.2%citric acid and about 2.5 ppm of each metal. With the addition of 2 mlof the citric acid solution, the acid is approximately 0.4% and themetals are each present at about 5 ppm in the test vials. Eachsurfactant was evaluated at a concentration of approximately 0.05 wt %.Controls were also evaluated with and without the metals.

The specific surfactants evaluated as well as the formulations of eachtest composition together with the results thereof are set forth inTable 12. As

Surfactant Metal Surfactants Chemistry Source Type ppm T0 T18 T48 T72T96 T18 − T0 T48 − T0 T72 − T0 T96 − T0 Pluronic L62 E0-PO BASF Nonionic0 47 1088 1113 1142 1156 1041 1066 1095 1109 Block copolymer 2.5 343 376362 364 340 33 19 2 −24 5 118 1127 1138 1175 1146 1009 1020 1057 1028Hampopsyl Na Hampshire Anionic 0 47 42 390 884 878 −5 343 837 831 L95N-lauroyl Chemical Sarcosinate 2.5 70 909 999 1037 983 839 929 967 913 5407 444 442 440 440 37 35 33 33 Sodium Sodium VWR Anionic 0 48 495 658642 639 447 610 594 591 Lauryl Lauryl Scientific Sulfate Sulfate 2.5 8890 88 88 87 2 0 0 −1 5 231 244 233 238 232 13 2 7 1 Witco Sodium WitcoAnionic 0 48 1060 1021 957 923 1012 973 909 875 Laurylether ChemicalSulfate (2 mole EO) 2.5 73 819 1415 1436 1447 746 1342 1363 1374 5 140143 446 870 915 3 306 730 775 Jeenteric Cocamido- Jeen Amphoteric 0 48645 657 882 462 597 609 834 414 CAPB propyl International LC betaineCorp 2.5 93 90 91 90 88 −3 −2 −3 −5 5 204 204 202 202 202 0 −2 −2 −2Manckinate Dilauryl Mackintire amphoteric 0 95 1020 866 817 788 925 771722 693 LO100 sulfosuccinate Chemical DLSS 2.5 118 97 106 1165 1317 −21−12 1047 1199 5 251 239 232 224 215 −12 −19 −27 −36 Ammonyx LaurylStepan Nonionic 0 44 28 35 45 28 −16 −9 1 −16 LO Dimethyamine ChemicalOxide 2.5 972 390 118 115 105 −582 −854 −857 −867 5 652 314 252 227 180−338 −400 −425 −472 Hamposyl Na N-cocoyl Hampshire Anionic 0 44 207 10431041 1037 163 999 997 993 C30 Sarcosinate Chemical 2.5 699 677 657 6731115 −22 −42 −26 416 5 510 554 576 589 593 44 66 79 83 Hamposyl NaN-myristoyl Hampshire Anionic 0 46 28 152 1205 1184 −18 106 1159 1138M30 Sarcosinate Chemical 2.5 588 564 1372 1385 1389 −24 784 797 801 5583 586 1299 1382 1383 3 716 799 800 Hampshire TEA lauroyl HampshireAnionic 0 66 946 977 927 905 880 911 861 839 TL Glutamate ChemicalGlutamate 2.5 182 410 1143 1189 1178 228 961 1007 996 5 218 618 11041129 1162 400 886 911 944 Tergitol Secondary Dow Nonionic 0 188 11401178 969 880 952 990 781 692 15S3 Alcohol Chemical Ethoxylate 2.5 180340 1247 1227 1134 160 1067 1047 954 5 317 818 1350 1297 1289 501 1033980 972 Tergitol Secondary Dow Nonionic 0 48 865 1077 766 577 817 1029718 529 15S7 Alcohol Chemical Ethoxylate 2.5 91 117 1152 1087 917 261061 996 826 5 197 408 1291 1224 1217 211 1094 1027 1020 TergitolBranched Dow Nonionic 0 50 940 1128 784 614 890 1078 734 564 TMN6Secondary Chemical Alcohol Ethoxylate 2.5 106 132 1184 1140 1048 26 10781034 942 5 215 480 1300 1275 1266 265 1085 1060 1051 Tergitol BranchedDow Nonionic 0 49 314 1015 700 541 265 966 651 492 TMN3 SecondaryChemical Alcohol Ethoxylate 2.5 92 94 1054 1014 876 2 962 922 784 5 189247 1100 1128 1128 58 911 939 939 Sulfonic C1-C14 Huntsman Nonionic 0206 1163 1183 948 809 957 977 742 603 TDA3B Ethoxylated Chemical Alcohol2.5 260 372 1296 1248 1192 112 1036 988 932 5 359 725 1369 1366 1319 3661010 1007 960 Tween 20 poly- Nonionic 0 57 1077 1118 1087 730 1020 10611030 673 oxyethylene (20) sorbitan monolaurate 2.5 92 932 1116 867 719840 1024 775 627 5 169 1080 1144 1105 1048 911 975 936 879 PlantarenAlkyl Cognis Nonionic 0 56 346 906 782 642 290 850 726 586 2000polyglycoside 2.5 102 410 660 1104 1323 308 558 1002 1221 5 229 235 232232 237 6 3 3 8 Control 0 58 1171 1152 1168 1177 1113 1094 1110 1119Control 0 94 968 1073 1180 1041 874 979 1086 947 (2.5 ppm) Control 0 1321196 1185 1228 1233 1064 1053 1096 1101 (5 ppm) Metals 2.5 93 1001 10801128 962 908 987 1035 869 Control Metals 5 152 1160 1186 1228 1193 10081034 1076 1041 Controlseen in Table 12, the benefits of the present invention are realizedwith a broad array of surfactant materials. Especially preferredsurfactants are those that are free or substantially free of repeatethylene oxide units and/or have moderate to lower molecular weights.Despite the foregoing, it is noted that good results were attained withthe Pluronic L62, a polyethylene oxide containing surfactant, when usedin combination with the lower level of acid and metals. It is thoughtthat the higher acid level may have affected the stability of thismaterial, and possibly like materials.

EXAMPLES 223-236 Strobilurin Comparison

A series of experiments were conducted in order to evaluate thecomparative performance of the bioactive compositions of the presentinvention and several commercial strobilurin based fungicides. Twobioactive formulations were used. The first, MI2, comprised a 16%aqueous citric acid solution having dissolved therein silver citrate,copper citrate and zinc citrate, each being added in an amount toprovide 200 ppm of each metal, together with 0.25% sodium Lauroylsarcosinate and 0.32% sodium lauryl sulfate, as noted above. The second,MI7, comprised a 160:1 dilution of a 16% aqueous phosphoric acidsolution having dissolved therein silver citrate, copper citrate andzinc citrate, each being added in an amount to provide 200 ppm of eachmetal in the phosphoric acid solution. Each fungicide was evaluated atdifferent levels. The specific formulations tested and the resultsattained therewith are presented in Tables 13 and 13A.

As seen in Tables 13 and 13A, the bioactive compositions of the presentinvention provided marked inhibition of yeast growth, even at the lowerconcentrations, ˜5 ppm of each metal ion. On the other hand, all but twoof the strobilurin based fungicide formulations tested failed todemonstrate any significant bioefficacy against yeast over the timeperiod tested. The two formulations that provided good inhibition wereat comparatively high loadings.

EXAMPLES 237-250 Strobilurin Synergy

In light of the foregoing poor performance of the strobilurinsgenerally, a series of experiments were conducted in order to evaluatethe potential synergy between the bioactive compositions of the presentinvention and the foregoing commercial strobilurin based fungicides. Thecompositions employed were the

TABLE 13 Turbidity (NTU) Example Fungicide vol. Added T0 T1 T18 T26 T50223 Quadris^(a) 1 384 393 1066 1139 1134 224 2 767 772 1264 1311 1315225 5 1332 1332 1364 1377 1376 226 Flint^(b) 1 418 424 1115 1208 1234227 2 718 708 1141 1299 1327 228 5 1210 1210 1270 1265 1245 229Headline^(c) 1 232 225 961 1114 1137 230 2 387 391 1066 1134 1199 231 5717 747 1178 1222 1241 232 MI2 0.5 128 129 154 177 174 233 MI2 1 414 384366 366 352 234 MI7 0.5 249 244 248 248 242 235 MI7 1 311 302 283 283277 236 Control 67 68 793 871 904 ^(a)Quadris fungicide from SyngentaCrop Protections, Inc. of Greensboro, NC, USA ^(b)Flint fungicide fromBayer CropScience LP of Research Triangle Park, NC, USA ^(c)Headlinefrom BASF Corporation of Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

TABLE 13A Change in Turbidity (delta NTU) Example Fungicide vol. AddedT18 − T1 T26 − T1 T50 − T1 223 Quadris^(a) 1 673 746 741 224 2 492 539543 225 5 32 45 44 226 Flint^(b) 1 691 784 810 227 2 433 591 619 228 560 55 35 229 Headline^(c) 1 736 889 912 230 2 675 743 808 231 5 431 475494 232 MI2 0.5 25 48 45 233 MI2 1 −18 −18 −32 234 MI7 0.5 4 4 −2 235MI7 1 −19 −19 −25 236 Control 725 803 836 ^(a)Quadris fungicide fromSyngenta Crop Protections, Inc. of Greensboro, NC, USA ^(b)Flintfungicide from Bayer CropScience LP of Research Triangle Park, NC, USA^(c)Headline from BASF Corporation of Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

TABLE 14 Turbidity (NTU) Example Bioactive Vol. Added Fungicide^(a) Vol.Added T0 T1 T18 T24 T96 237 MI2 0.25 Q 1 552 554 544 670 1315 238 MI20.25 Q 2 896 894 868 891 1470 239 MI2 0.5 Q 1 588 578 564 564 608 240MI2 0.25 F 1 578 599 568 568 1320 241 MI2 0.25 F 2 900 900 886 886 1330242 MI2 0.25 H 1 436 433 454 454 1312 243 MI2 0.25 H 2 611 637 667 6321302 244 MI7 0.25 Q 1 558 574 640 668 1273 245 MI7 0.25 F 1 517 560 9901197 1396 246 MI7 0.25 H 1 465 476 605 587 1290 247 Control — 93 101 901986 1075 248 MI2 0.5 499 440 390 390 373 249 MI2 0.25 182 179 175 1761122 250 MI2 0.5 262 260 260 275 275 ^(a)Q—Quadris fungicide fromSyngenta Crop Protections, Inc. of Greensboro, NC, USA; F—Flintfungicide from Bayer CropScience LP of Research Triangle Park, NC, USA;and H—Headline from BASF Corporation of Research Triangle Park, NC, USA

TABLE 14A Change in Turbidity (delta NTU) Example Bioactive Vol. AddedFungicide^(a) Vol. Added T18 − T1 T24 − T1 T96 − T1 237 MI2 0.25 Q 1 −10116 761 238 MI2 0.25 Q 2 −26 −3 576 239 MI2 0.5 Q 1 −14 −14 30 240 MI20.25 F 1 −31 −31 721 241 MI2 0.25 F 2 −14 −14 430 242 MI2 0.25 H 1 21 21879 243 MI2 0.25 H 2 30 −5 665 244 MI7 0.25 Q 1 66 94 699 245 MI7 0.25 F1 430 637 836 246 MI7 0.25 H 1 129 111 814 247 Control — 800 885 974 248MI2 0.5 −50 −50 −67 249 MI2 0.25 −4 −3 943 250 MI2 0.5 0 15 15^(a)Q—Quadris fungicide from Syngenta Crop Protections, Inc. ofGreensboro, NC, USA; F—Flint fungicide from Bayer CropScience LP ofResearch Triangle Park, NC, USA; and H—Headline from BASF Corporation ofResearch Triangle Park, NC, USAsame as used in the previous set of examples. The specific formulationstested and the results attained therewith are presented in Tables 14 and14A.

As seen in Tables 14 and 14A, the combination of the bioactivecompositions of the present invention with the strobilurin productsproduced a synergy whereby even the lowest levels of the strobilurinproducts tested produced a significant inhibition in yeast growth, eventhough these products appear to increase yeast growth when used alone,as shown in the Tables 13 and 13A.

EXAMPLES 251-259 Copper/Zinc Study

A series of experiments were conducted to demonstrate the bioefficacy ofbinary metal systems as compared to the ternary system used in mostother examples. Here a solution of MI2 was compared to a similarcomposition containing 300 ppm of copper and 300 ppm of zinc (i.e., a16% aqueous citric acid solution having dissolved therein copper citrateand zinc citrate, each being added in an amount to provide 300 ppm ofeach metal, together with 0.25% sodium Lauroyl sarcosinate and 0.32%sodium lauryl sulfate). The two bioactive compositions were evaluated atdifferent loadings to assess their bioefficacy. The specificformulations tested and the results attained therewith are presented inTables 15 and 15A.

As seen in Tables 15 and 15A, both the binary (copper/zinc—Cu/Zn) andthe MI2 ternary silver/copper/zinc antimicrobial bioactive compositionsdemonstrated comparable bioefficacy in inhibiting the growth of yeast.

TABLE 15 Composition (gm) Example Cu/Zn MI2 T0 T1 T18 T24 T46 251   1776 586 468 463 436 252 0.5 292 269 250 250 245 253 0.2 147 162 772 10551075 254 0.1 93 125 1076 1070 1036 255 Control 66 127 1020 1012 1137 2561 830 633 547 522 500 257 0.5 335 320 292 302 284 258 0.2 152 178 5121064 1098 259 0.1 90 136 1083 1087 1067

TABLE 15A Composition (gm) Cu/Zn MI2 T1 − T0 T18 − T0 T24 − T0 T46 − T0251   1 −190 −118 −5 −27 252 0.5 −23 −19 0 −5 253 0.2 15 610 283 20 2540.1 32 951 −6 −34 255 Control 61 893 −8 125 256 1 −197 −86 −25 −22 2570.5 −15 −28 10 −18 258 0.2 26 334 552 34 259 0.1 46 947 4 −20

EXAMPLES 260-269 Mancozeb Synergy

A further series of experiments were conducted to assess thebioefficacy, especially the synergy, of the bioactive agrichemicalcomposition containing Mancozeb (an ethylene bisdithiocarbamate) and theMI2 bioactive acid solution (MI2). The specific formulations tested andthe results attained therewith are presented in Table 16 and 16A.

TABLE 16 Composition (gm) Example Mancozeb MI2 T0 T2 T18 T24 T44 260 0.5934 976 1220 1095 1091 261 0.4 780 859 1021 982 1052 262 0.3 624 7171209 1067 1113 263 0.2 392 489 1035 933 1073 264 0.2 57 55 54 72 756 2650.5 0.2 930 897 864 839 788 266 0.4 0.2 727 709 684 664 591 267 0.3 0.2537 555 535 509 460 268 0.2 0.2 370 369 370 343 331 269 Control 23 106935 824 917

TABLE 16A Composition Exam- (gm) ple Mancozeb MI2 T2 − T0 T18 − T0 T24 −T0 T44 − T0 260 0.5 42 286 161 157 261 0.4 79 241 202 272 262 0.3 93 585443 489 263 0.2 97 643 541 681 264 0.2 −2 −3 15 699 265 0.5 0.2 −33 −66−91 −142 266 0.4 0.2 −18 −43 −63 −136 267 0.3 0.2 18 −2 −28 −77 268 0.20.2 −1 0 −27 −39 269 Control 83 912 801 894

As seen in Tables 16 and 16A, the mancozeb by itself was ineffective atall levels tested. The bioactive acid solution by itself provided modestbioefficacy, in spite of the very low level of antimicrobial metal ions;however, the suitable bioefficacy appeared to have been lost after 44hours. In sharp contrast, the combination of the two, at all levels ofthe mancozeb, demonstrated excellent bioefficacy, even after 44 hours.

EXAMPLES 270-293 Amine Oxide Surfactant Study

A series of experiments were conducted to demonstrate the bioefficacy ofamine oxide surfactants, specifically, lauryl dimethyl amine oxide(LDAO), alone and in combination with sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (NaLS)and/or sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). In this instance a very diluteantimicrobial metal-acid solution was employed: 0.08% citric acid and 1ppm each of silver, copper and zinc. The surfactants were employed atdifferent levels to assess the lowest concentration at which synergy isrealized. The specific formulations tested and the results attainedtherewith are presented in Table 17.

As seen in Table 17, even at such low concentration of acid and metal,the addition of only 0.0025% lauryl dimethyl amine oxide surfactantshowed bioefficacy, with modest bioefficacy at the 0.00125% level withsodium lauroyl sarcosinate or the combination of sodium lauroylsarcosinate and/or sodium lauryl sulfate. At 0.0025% lauryl dimethylamine oxide, marked bioefficacy

TABLE 17 LDAO NaLS SLS AG, Cu, Zn Example (w/w)% (w/w)% (w/w)% ppm Tzero T1 T42 T66 T42 − T1 T66 − T1 270 0.00025 132 219 1145 1133 926 914271 0.00125 141 211 1120 1039 909 828 272 0.0025 161 196 862 814 666 618273 0.00025 1 142 209 1108 1138 899 929 274 0.00125 1 144 208 1080 1076872 868 275 0.0025 1 156 208 963 969 755 761 276 144 239 1232 1216 993977 277 0.00025 0.00025 144 217 1084 1042 867 825 278 0.00125 0.00125136 169 860 784 691 615 279 0.0025 0.0025 136 136 562 543 426 407 2800.00025 0.00025 1 150 216 1032 1021 816 805 281 0.00125 0.00125 1 165186 872 852 686 666 282 0.0025 0.0025 1 174 184 181 295 −3 111 2830.00025 149 248 1138 1165 890 917 284 0.00125 142 202 1019 1018 817 816285 0.0025 147 207 1034 1007 827 800 286 1 153 242 1167 1178 925 936 287165 270 1223 1207 953 937 288 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 178 272 1094 1006822 734 289 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 167 242 800 686 558 444 290 0.00250.0025 0.0025 224 212 605 550 393 338 291 0.00025 0.00025 0.00025 1 171252 1039 1010 787 758 292 0.00125 0.00125 0.00125 1 260 258 862 872 604614 293 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025 1 264 257 242 242 −15 −15was found with addition of sodium lauroyl sarcosinate and superiorbioefficacy found with addition of both sodium lauroyl sarcosinate andsodium lauryl sulfate.

Antibacterial Study

EXAMPLES 294-325

A series of experiments were conducted to evaluate the performance ofthe individual components of the claimed bioactive compositions as wellas various combinations thereof, including, the claimed compositionsthemselves, in suppressing the growth of various bacteria. Escherichiacoli (E. coli), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (P. aeruginosa) andStaphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) were selected as a test organisms asthey are generally accepted in the industry as indicator organisms for awide variety of bacteria. Two different test methodologies wereevaluated, one testing the efficacy in a growth broth media and theother testing inhibition in plated growth media.

EXAMPLES 309-321

In the first set of experiments a growth medium was prepared by adding10 grams of nutrient medium (Difco Sabouraud dextrose broth from BD ofFranklin Lakes, N.J., USA) to 300 ml of distilled water. The 20 mlaliquots of the growth medium were dispensed into sterile into 40 mlborosilicate glass vials with Teflon lined caps (VWR International Cat.No. 15900-004). The vials were inoculated with the bacteria using asterile loop and the vials then incubated at 37° C. A bioactivecomposition according to the invention was then added to certain vials,the bioactive composition was (MI2), as described above, comprising a16% aqueous citric acid solution having dissolved therein silvercitrate, copper citrate and zinc citrate, each added in an amount toprovide 200 ppm of each metal, together with 0.25% sodium Lauroylsarcosinate and 0.32% sodium lauryl sulfate. The turbidity of eachmixture was then determined and the vial transferred to an incubator at30° C. Turbidity measurements were performed as in the above cited yeaststudies. Each vial was periodically removed from the incubator and themixture in the vials assessed for turbidity. The specific formulationstested, the timing for each turbidity evaluation, and the resultsattained thereby were as set forth in Table 18.

As with the yeast study, the concentration of the metals refers theapproximate amount of each metal, copper, silver and zinc. Theconcentrations do not account for the volume of MI2 added: thus, theconcentrations presented are on the basis of a 20 ml total volume.

As seen in Table 18, there was short term increase in turbidity. Sinceit was not anticipated that any significant growth would have manifestedin such a short period of time, it is believed that the initial increasein turbidity resulted from a denaturation of proteins in the brothand/or bacterial proteins. Regardless, the longer term results showexcellent bacterial inhibition with the compositions according to thepresent invention.

TABLE 18 Metals Time (hours) Example Bacterium MI2 (ml) ppm T0 T0.5 T18T24 T96 294 E. coli 0 0 15.3 16 119 136 264 295 0.5 5 131 135.3 165 162162 296 1 10 445 454 481 480 480 297 2 20 1039 1080 1135 1140 1009 298p. aeruginosa 0 0 35.8 37.8 158 383 436 299 0.5 5 197 207 250 262 261300 1 10 705 735 782 808 807 301 2 20 1011 1057 1121 1159 1146 302 S.aureus 0 0 46 45 148 184 406 303 0.5 5 215 163 173 183 184 304 1 10 643494 326 309 276 305 2 20 1203 1032 595 525 281

EXAMPLE 306

In this experiment, six 25 mm sterile coverslips were placed intoseparate 100×15 mm sterile Petri dishes and two of each inoculated with100 μl of one of three TSB broths: each broth containing one of E. coli,P. aeruginosa and S. aureus that had been allowed to incubate for 48-54hours. In order to afix the inoculum to the coverslips, the Petri disheswere placed on a low temperature hot plate for approximately 5 minutes.One of each of the inoculated Petri dishes was set aside as positivecontrols. The other was sprayed with 4 sprays of a 4:1 dilution of thebioactive compositions MI2. After 2-3 minutes the coverslips and liquidcontents of each Petri dish was aseptically transferred into separatevials containing 20 ml of TSB and incubated at 37° C. for 24 hours.Negative controls were prepared by placing non-inoculated sterilecoverslips into the 20 ml TSB and incubating as well. After 24 hours, nogrowth was observed with the negative controls or with those inoculatedcoverslips that had been sprayed with the bioactive composition of thepresent invention. Visual growth was observed in two of the positivecontrols (i.e., those vials containing the inoculated coverslips thathad not been sprayed): the positive control for p. aeruginosa failed toshow visual growth. It is believed that the failure of the later to showgrowth resulted from overheating the inoculum during the fixturing step.

EXAMPLE 307

In this experiment, two Trypticase soy agar (TSA) plates were inoculatedwith 500 μl of one of three TSB broths for a total of 6 inoculatedplates: each broth contained one of E. coli, P. aeruginosa and S. aureusthat had been allowed to incubate for 48-54 hours. The inoculum wasevenly spread across the surface of the plate with a sterile loop. A 15mm diameter disc of filter paper that had been dipped in a 4:1 dilutionof the MI2 bioactive composition was placed in the center of one of eachset of inoculated plates and all plates were placed in an incubator at37° C. for 24 hours. Non-inoculated control plates were also placed inthe incubator as well.

After 24 hours, visual growth was observed. No bacterial growth was seenin the non-inoculated plates. Growth was observed on all of theinoculated plates; however, in those plates wherein the treated filterpaper had been placed, no growth was seen on or near the filter paper.Each treated filter paper disc manifested a clear zone of inhibition ofbacterial growth.

EXAMPLE 308

In this experiment, two Trypticase soy agar (TSA) plates wereinnoculated with 500 μl of one of three TSB broths for a total of 6inoculated plates: each broth contained one of E. coli, P. aeruginosaand S. aureus that had been allowed to incubate for 48-54 hours. Theinoculum was evenly spread across the surface of the plate with asterile loop. One of each inoculated plates was then sprayed,approximately 24 times, with the 4:1 dilution of the MI2 bioactivecomposition. The inoculated plates plus a set of plates non-inoculatedcontrol plates were placed in an incubator at 37° C. for 24 hours.

After 24 hours, visual growth was observed on inoculated, but untreatedplates whereas no bacterial growth was seen in the non-inoculated platesor in those inoculated plates that had been sprayed with the dilutedbioactive composition.

EXAMPLES 309 Bacterial MIC Study

A study was conducted to determine the minimum inhibitory concentration(MIC) of the MI2 acid solution, i.e., 200 ppm of each of silver, copperand zinc metal (see Examples 72-79). Three different bacteria wereevaluated, Clavibacter michiganese, Pseudomonas syringae and Erwiniaamylovora, each in a different growth medium appropriate for thatbacteria, namely brain infusion agar/broth, nutrient agar/broth, andnutrient glucose agar/broth, respectively. In conducting the test, threesets of 10 test tubes were prepared, one set for each bacteria, andlabeled 1 to 10. 0.5 ml of the appropriate broth was placed in each oftest tubes 2 through 10. Then 0.5 ml of the MI2 solution was added toeach of test tubes 1 and 2. 0.5 ml of the contents of test tube 2 wasthen transferred to test tube 3 and then 0.5 ml of test tube 3 to testtube 4 and so on to test tube 9. 0.5 ml or test tube 9 was discarded. A0.5 ml suspension of each bacteria to be tested was then added to eachof the ten tubes for that series and the tubes incubated for 24 hours at26° C. Because the acid solution caused considerable cloudiness of thetubes to which it was added, macroscopic evaluation was not possible.Instead, each tube was subcultured onto corresponding agar plates. Theobserved growth was as indicated in Table 19 (a “+” indicates visualgrowth and a “−” no growth).

TABLE 19 Test Tube 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Metals 200 50 25 12.5 6.75 3.1251.56 0.782 0.391 0.195 concentration* (ppm) C. michiganese − − − − −− + + + + P. syringae − − − − − + + + + + E. amylovora − − − − −− + + + + *concentration of each metal, the total metal content is 3time the number presented.

Based on the results presented in Table 19, the MIC of MI2 is 3.125 ppmfor C. michiganese and for E. amylovora and 6.75 ppm for P. syringae.The bioefficacy of such low levels are anticipated to show synergy whencombined with conventional fungicides/bactericides for these targetorganisms

EXAMPLE 310 Alternaria Leaf Spot

To demonstrate the efficacy of the bioactive compositions on liveplants, a comparative study was conducted comparing the efficacy of abioactive composition according to the present invention to twocommercial products, Eagle 40WP, a myclobutanil based (40 wt %)fungicide available from Dow AgroSciences LLC of Indianapolis, Ind.,USA, and Scala SC, a pyrimethanil based (54.6 wt %) fungicide availablefrom Bayer CropScience LP of Research Triangle Park, N.C., USA.Additional evaluations were conducted to assess the potential forsynergy between the inventive bioactive compositions and Eagle 40WP. Thebioactive composition according to the present invention comprised a 16%aqueous citric acid solution having dissolved therein silver citrate,copper citrate, and zinc citrate in an amount to provide 200 ppm of eachmetal in the solution, 0.25% sodium lauroyl sarcosinate and 0.32% sodiumlauryl sulfate (MI6). This solution was diluted at rates of 40:1 and20:1 for application to the plants thereby providing a solutioncontaining ˜5 ppm and ˜10 ppm of each metal as sprayed.

Pittosporum tobira “Wheeleri” rooted cuttings were planted in standard 4inch pots containing Sunshine Mix No. 1 and fertilized with ½ tsp.Osmocote Plus 15-9-12. The plants were placed in a heated greenhousewith poly and shade cloth covering the top and sides and flood irrigatedas needed. After 44 days, the plants were treated with the variousantifungal treatments—12 plants were treated with each treatment.Thereafter, the plants were placed in individual clear plastic bags(high humidity) in the greenhouse for the duration of the study. Theplants were irrigated from below using an ebb and flood bench to assureno water application to their leaves during the trial. The plants weresubsequently inoculated by spraying with a spore suspension of a cultureof Alternaria piffospori mixed with sterilized water 4 days followingthe initial treatment. The treatments were reapplied 7 days and 17 daysfollowing inoculation. All treatments were applied by spray until thesurfaces of the plant leaves were fully wetted (began to drip). Two setsof plants were used as positive and negative controls: the first set wastreated with water only (Treatment A) and not inoculated. The second setwas also treated with water only, but was also inoculated concurrentwith the others. The specific formulations for each of the treatmentswere as set forth in Table 20.

TABLE 20 Treatment Composition Dilution A Water - noninoculated BWater - inoculated C MI6 6.25 ml/250 ml water D MI6 12.5 ml/250 ml waterE MI6/Eagle 40 WP 6.25 ml/250 ml water// 1.5 oz/100 gal water FMI6/Eagle 40 WP 6.25/250 ml water// 3.0 oz/100 gal water G MI6/Eagle 40WP 12.5 ml/250 ml water// 1.5 oz/100 gal water H Eagle 40 WP 1.5* oz/100gal water I Eagle 40 WP 3.0 oz/100 gal water J Scala 9.0* oz/100 galwater *manufacturer recommended application rates

Six days following the second treatment, the plants were evaluated forAlternaria leaf spot by visual inspection. The results of the leaf spotevaluation were as presented in Table 21. As seen in Table 21, thoseplants treated with the lowest concentration of the bioactivecomposition (with ˜5 ppm of each metal ion—Treatment C) still showednearly a 50% drop in leaf spot formation. Doubling the bioactivecomposition (˜10 ppm of each metal ion—Treatment D) reduced leaf spot byover 75%. Somewhat similar results were found with the two dilutions ofthe commercial fungicide Eagle 40WP with the lower concentration(Treatment H) reducing leaf spot by about 30% while the higherconcentration (Treatment I) reduced leaf spot by 80%. Combining the twoprovided marked improvement with, oddly enough, the combination of thetwo lowest concentrations providing nearly complete inhibition of leafspot manifestation. The other commercial fungicide Scala SC provided noinhibition and, appeared to promote the manifestation of leaf spot.

TABLE 21 Treat- Plant No. ment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean A. 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 B. 4 5 0 15 35 20 40 15 10 25 30 20 18.2 C. 0 0 00 0 5 35 35 40 0 0 0 9.6 D. 0 1 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 10 30 4.2 E. 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 5 0 0 0 0.5 F. 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 5 10 0 3.3 G. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 100 0 0 2.1 H. 0 0 0 5 10 0 30 35 40 10 10 15 12.9 I. 2 0 0 0 0 0 10 25 50 0 0 3.5 J. 25 25 10 5 15 25 30 0 40 40 40 20 22.9

Eleven days following the last treatment, disease severity was onceagain assessed. However, owing to the number of spots which made givinga numerical assessment impossible, disease severity was recorded usingthe following scale: 1-1—no disease, 2—slight, 3—moderate, 4—severe to5—plant dead. The results are presented in Table 22.

TABLE 22 Treat- Plant No. ment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Mean A. 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1.1 a B. 2.5 2.5 1 4 3.5 3 4 2 2 3 3 3.5 2.8 c C. 1 11 1 1 2 2 2.5 2.5 2 2 1 1.6 a D. 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2.5 1.4 a E. 1 11 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 1.2 a F. 1 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1.3 a G. 1 1 1 1 11 2 2 2 1 1 1 1.2 a H. 2 2 1 2.5 2 2 2.5 3 3 2 2.5 2.5 2.2 b I. 2.5 1 11 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 1.7 a J. 3.5 4 3 3 3 4 3.5 2.5 4 4 4 4 3.5 d

As shown in Table 22, the bioactive compositions according to thepresent invention provided excellent protection against leaf spot, withthose plants treated at the higher level and in combination with thecommercial fungicide Eagle 40WP showing nearly the same level of diseaseas those that had not been inoculated at all. On the contrary, the Eaglealone, even at the recommended application rate, proved less efficaciousthan the bioactive composition. Finally, the Scala once again failed toshow any efficacy and, in fact, proved more detrimental. It wassuspected that the Scala treated plants manifested both leaf spotdisease and phytotoxicity. None of the plants treated with the bioactivecomposition or the commercial Eagle fungicide showed evidence ofphytotoxicity.

EXAMPLE 311 Fire Blight on Crabapples

A study of the bioefficacy of the various agrichemical compositions,including bioactive acid solutions and blends thereof with an antibioticagrichemical, were evaluated to assess their bioefficacy against fireblight on crabapples. The study was conducted on 5 year old Snow Driftcrabapple trees, with each of the compositions being applied to tentrees in two-subplots of five trees, four different times: at 100%bloom—day 1, a second application was made on day 4, a third on day 11and a final treatment on day 19. The trees were inoculated with E.amylovora 153N at a concentration of 4×10⁶ cells per milliliter on day1, following drying of the treatment, with the inoculation beingrepeated on day 13. Evaluation for fire blight was completed on 100blossoms for each of the subplots on day 12, day 19 and day 27.Additionally, the incidence of shoot infection and the length of cankerswere evaluated on day 63. The results are shown in Table 23.

The test compositions were prepared by forming solutions of thebioactive agents. Two different dilutions of the MI2 bioactive wereevaluated, the first employing 94.46 ml/gallon (25 ml/l) of water (5 ppmof each metal) and the second 188.9 ml/gallon (50 ml/l) of water (10 ppmof each metal). A streptomycin product (17% concentrated) was diluted ata rate of 0.049 lbs/gallon (58.72 g/l) (200 ppm). Finally, copperhydroxide was diluted at a rate of 1 lb/gallon (119.8 g/l). Each of thecompositions and blends were spray applied at a rate of 50 gallons(189.3 l) pre acre. The specific tests and the results attainedtherewith are shown in Table 23. The results are presented as the meanof the counts.

As seen in Table 23, all tested compositions showed fewer infectedflowers as compared to the control. The combination of the MI2 acidsolution with streptomycin performed better than either bioactive alone.A significant rate response was seen between the two MI2 compositions:the 10 ppm solution performing significantly better than the 5 ppmsolution. Shoot blight incidence was greatly reduced for the copperhydroxide, streptomycin an streptomycin/MI2 combination and a modestimprovement with the higher concentrated solution of MI2. Onlystreptomycin and copper hydroxide appeared to prevent canker, whilemeasurable cankers were noted with all compositions containing bioactiveacid solution. Even so, these results show a marked benefit of thebioactive acid solutions alone or in combination with streptomycin. Moreimportantly, it must be noted that even at the higher concentration MI2composition, the 10 ppm of each metal, a total of 30 ppm metals, palesin comparison to the more than 50,000 ppm copper in the copper hydroxidesolution. In essence, each application of the copper hydroxide releasealmost 1000 g or Copper into the environment compared to less than 2grams or any one metal released by higher concentration MI2 composition.

TABLE 23 Canker Rate Blossom Shoot Size Bioactive (per acre) IncidenceIncidence (cm) Day 12 19 27 63 63 MI2^(a) 4.723 l/a 0.2 5.5 16.5 8.840.0 MI2 9.445 l/a 1.7 2.2 6.0 4.8 19.8 Copper 5 lbs/a 3.1 2.2 9.0 1.00.0 Hydroxide^(b) (2.27 kg/a) Streptomycin^(c) 0.49 lb/a 1.8 4.8 3.091.2 0.0 MI2 + 4.723/a 1.3 1.7 4.3 1.0 26.0 Streptomycin 0.49 lbs/aControl — 7.0 8.5 31.7 7.6 22.4 (untreated) ^(a)16% w/w aqueous citricacid solution having dissolved therein silver citrate, copper citrateand zinc citrate, each added in an amount to provide 200 ppm of eachmetal, together with 0.25% sodium Lauroyl sarcosinate and 0.32% sodiumlauryl sulfate. ^(b)53% w/w concentrated copper hydroxide ^(c)17% w/wstreptomycin

Although the present invention has been described with respect to theforegoing specific embodiments and examples, it should be appreciatedthat other embodiments utilizing the concept of the present inventionare possible without departing from the scope of the invention. Thepresent invention is defined by the claimed elements and any and allmodifications, variations, or equivalents that fall within the spiritand scope of the underlying principles.

1. A liquid bioactive agrichemical composition comprising an acidsolution comprising a) solvent, b) an acid, c) at least oneantimicrobial metal ion source, and, d) at least one surfactant, saidacid and antimicrobial metal source being wholly or partially soluble inthe solvent, wherein the solvent is water or a an aqueous-based solventand the liquid composition has a pH of less than 6 and wherein the acidis present in a molar excess, relative to the antimicrobial metal ionsof the source, and the concentration of antimicrobial metal ionattributed to the acid solution is from about 1 ppm to about 500 ppm inthe case of a single antimicrobial metal ion or from 2 ppm to 1000 ppmin the case of multiple antimicrobial metal ions.
 2. The agrichemicalcomposition claim 1 having a pH of from 1.5 to 5 and wherein the molarexcess of acid, relative to the antimicrobial metal ions, is at least 2times.
 3. The agrichemical composition of claim 1 wherein the acidconcentration of the acid solution is from about 0.01 to about 10 weightpercent and said acid is present at a molar excess, relative to theantimicrobial metal ions, of at least 2 times.
 4. The agrichemicalcomposition of claim 1 wherein the acid is present in a molar excess ofat least 5 times.
 5. The agrichemical composition of claim 1 wherein theacid concentration of the acid solution is from about 0.1 to about 4weight percent.
 6. The antimicrobial composition of claim 1 wherein theantimicrobial metal ions are selected from the group consisting ofsilver, copper, zinc, mercury, tin, iron, gold, lead, bismuth, cadmium,chromium, and thallium ions and combinations of any two or more of suchions.
 7. The agrichemical composition of claim 1 wherein theantimicrobial metal ions are selected from the group consisting ofsilver ions, copper ions, zinc ions, a combination of silver and copperions, a combination of silver and zinc ions, a combination of copper andzinc ions and a combination of silver, copper and zinc ions.
 8. Theagrichemical composition of claim 1 wherein the antimicrobial ion ispresent at a concentration of from about 1 ppm to about 300 ppm in thecase of a single metal ion and from about 2 to about 500 in the case ofmultiple metal ions.
 9. The agrichemical composition of claim 1 whereinthe antimicrobial ion is present at a concentration of from about 5 ppmto about 150 ppm in the case of a single metal ion and from about 5 ppmto about 50 ppm in the case of multiple metal ions.
 10. The agrichemicalcomposition of claim 1 wherein the antimicrobial metal ion source isselected from antimicrobial metal salts, antimicrobial metal ionion-exchange complexes and antimicrobial metal ion containing solubleglasses.
 11. The agrichemical composition of claim 1 wherein the atleast one surfactant impacts or interacts with cell wall membranes ofmicroorganisms or the function thereof and is present in an amount offrom about 0.001 to about 3 weight percent.
 12. The agrichemicalcomposition of claim 11 wherein a combination of two or more surfactantsis employed, each surfactant independently an anionic surfactant, anon-ionic surfactant or an amphoteric surfactant.
 13. The agrichemicalcomposition of claim 12 wherein the surfactants are selected from thegroup consisting of sulfonates, sulfates, sulfosuccinates, sarcosinates,mono- and di- glycerides, amine oxides, ether carboxylates, betaines,suflobetaines, and glycinates.
 14. The agrichemical composition of claim13 wherein the surfactants are selected from the group consisting ofsulfonates, sulfates, sulfosuccinates, sarcosinates, and amine oxides.15. The agrichemical composition of claim 1 wherein the acid is acarboxylic acid.
 16. The agrichemical composition of claim 1 wherein theacid is a mineral acid.
 17. The agrichemical composition of claim 1further comprising one or more conventional agrichemical additivesselected from protective colloids, adjuvants, stabilizers, binders,thickeners, thixotropic agents, penetrating agents, antifreeze agents,defoaming agents, foaming agents, oils for spraying, corrosioninhibitors, surfactants, fillers, wetting agents, dispersing agents,emulsifiers, rain fasteners, and dyes and other known active ingredientswhich have pesticide or plant growth related properties or both.
 18. Amethod of inhibiting the growth of fungi on plants said methodcomprising applying the agrichemical composition of claim 1 to thesurfaces of plants to be treated at a rate whereby the amount ofantimicrobial metal ions being applied is about 500 grams or less peracre.
 19. The method of claim 24 wherein the rate is such that theamount of antimicrobial agent to be applied is from about 1 gram toabout 200 grams per acre.
 20. The method of claim 24 wherein the rate issuch that the amount of antimicrobial agent to be applied is from about5 grams to about 100 grams acre.
 21. A method of inhibiting the growthof fungi on seeds said method comprising applying the agrichemicalcomposition of claim 1 to the seeds and allowing the solvent toevaporate.